5 historical fiction tropes I love (and 4 I hate)

With approximately three million new books being published every year, it’s no surprise that some novels have similar characters, storylines and tropes.

In this blog post, I discuss five historical fiction tropes I love and four I hate.

Strong female characters (love)

Every novel needs a strong main character to root for as the story progresses, and I love it even more when that character is female.

Throughout history, women have been portrayed as weak and hysterical, subordinate to their male counterparts. Unfortunately, this is a theme that has carried over into literature as well.

Historical romance readers will recognise damsels in distress who need a man to come rescue them from whatever situation they find themselves in. Think of Maid Marion in Robin Hood and Snow White. These characters have been a mainstay in fiction for centuries because they mimicked the role women played in society and the ideal of womanhood.

But the truth is that, while women did not have the same power or influence as men, they were not as agencyless as history would have us believe. Just take a look at Jackie Crookston, the main character in my short story, Brotherings. She led a protest about conscription into local militias in the late eighteenth century. This was seen to be completely unwomanly, but this was the only option she had at that moment to express her displeasure and protect what was important to her.

Having said all of this, I’m not a fan of protagonists ahead of their time, which are far too common in modern-day historical fiction. A protagonist ahead of her time usually comments on or rebels against the societal norms of the times. For example, a female character commenting on the unfairness of having to wear a corset or not being able to vote.

I love a strong female character to root for, but, when I’m reading historical fiction, I don’t want a 21st-century implant. If I wanted that, I would pick up a contemporary novel.

I pick up a historical novel because I want to read about people from the past who have different beliefs than me. I want to see how those beliefs influence the way they react to their world and how they manoeuvre in their own world, using the values and beliefs of that society to their own ends.

We shouldn’t shy away from telling stories about the abuse and misogyny that women faced in the past, but we also shouldn’t present all women as helpless victims either. It’s not accurate, and it’s a massive disservice to them. Strong female characters can have agency without feeling modern.

The dual timeline (love)

Dual timelines have become increasingly popular in the last couple of decades. In their simplest form, dual timelines are stories that feature two stories told from different perspectives that overlap and affect each other. Historical fiction dual timelines tell the stories of two protagonists from different time periods, usually a historical period and a modern period. These two narratives are distinct and could standalone, but they impact each other throughout the story and collide at the climax.

One of my favourite trilogies, the Languedoc series by bestselling author Kate Mosse, uses a dual timeline to contrast Carcassonne’s past and present. In Labyrinth, the first book of the series, Mosse switches between a medieval storyline where the protagonist, Alaïs, is attempting to save the Holy Grail from destruction and a modern storyline where Alice rediscovers the grail and again tries to save it from destruction. Everything we see Alice discover, we see Alaïs experience.

It takes a lot of skill to weave two different storylines together, especially when they take place in very different periods. It doesn’t always work, but, when it does, it’s a clever demonstration of how the past shapes the present.

Real and fictional historical events (Love and Hate)

A question a lot of new historical fiction writers have is whether they have to stick to real historical events or if they can fictionalise aspects of their story. Both are equally loved, but it often depends on how the author executes the story.

Most readers don’t care too much about whether the events depicted in the story are real or fictional in that they’ll read the book regardless of whether the events are real or not. What they do care about is historical accuracy or at least that the scene feels like it could have happened in the time period of their story. For instance, as writers, we may need to fill in the gaps where the records don’t exist. Readers won’t mind this as long as it feels relevant, appropriate and grounded in the historical setting.

We also need to be careful about presenting fictional events and stories as actual history, especially if the culture we’re discussing isn’t our own. This can be problematic. This is where my love for a combination of real and fiction events turns to hate. We don’t have the right to rewrite history because it doesn’t suit our story.

Showing off research (Hate)

Writing historical fiction takes a lot of research. An author needs to know every detail of the world their characters live in if they want their stories to be believable. The problem arises when they try to include all of this research in their writing. They write long paragraphs of what they’ve learned but isn’t entirely relevant to their story. The end result is that it slows the pacing and bores the reader.

I think this comes from wanting to be as historically accurate as possible, which is something we should encourage, but these writers forget that readers want to learn through how the characters interact with their world, not from factual passages. They don’t want to be told that people used animal fat to make candles; they want to see characters lighting one and commenting on the smell. If they want to learn about candle making in the past, they’d pick up a non-fiction book on the topic. It comes down to the old writing adage: show, don’t tell.

But writers shouldn’t put all that research to waste. I love a good author’s note with an explanation of what they changed and why. Even better, they could turn all this research into a blog series about the actual history of the book and use it to promote their books.

Anachronisms (Hate)

At the other end of the spectrum are anachronisms. An anachronism is a person or object from one time period that appears in another. For example, a light switch in a house before electricity was available. Anachronisms jolt the reader out of the story. They shift our focus from the story to the mistake, and it can be hard to get back into the swing once you’re out of it.

Anachronisms tend to result from a gap in the writer’s knowledge of the period or an assumption on the part of the author. I understand that it’s not possible for an author to know everything there is to know about a time period because there is insufficient evidence or they don’t have access to all of the resources they need. But it is frustrating to come across errors that could easily be fixed by a simple Google search.

Famous faces (Love)

One thing many readers love about historical fiction is that they can ‘meet’ real people from history, even if that’s through an author’s interpretation of that character. Some of the most famous historical fiction authors, such as Hilary Mantel, Philippa Gregory and Paula McLean, use famous historical figures as the protagonists and antagonists of their writing.

Re-imagining real historical figures in historical fiction can be fraught with challenges, but it is worth pushing through because readers love meeting historical characters in books.

While I love reading about well-known figures, I also love reading about lesser-known figures or fictional characters that represent the ordinary person. Some of my favourite characters are characters the author has created to represent ordinary people living lives that have largely been ignored by history because their stories aren’t as ‘glamorous’ or ‘exciting’ as some would like. My goal in my writing is to tell these people’s stories, but there is plenty of room for everything in the market.

Historical fiction subgenres (Love)

Perhaps my favourite trope is the variety of subgenres within historical fiction. You have historical fantasy, historical mystery, historical romance (and within that Regency romance) and many, many more.

This opens historical fiction up to more readers who might come for the romance but fall in love with the history and branch out into other historical fiction subgenres.

Marriage of convenience (Hate)

One of the most popular romance tropes is the marriage of convenience trope. This is a common feature in historical romance novels. Two characters who wouldn’t be the most obvious choice for a romantic couple are forced to marry for convenience (think of the reason Claire and Jamie marry in Outlander), only to fall deeply in love.

Ok, hate is maybe a bit strong. There’s nothing outright wrong with this trope. I just feel like it’s overdone.

Conclusion

Love them or hate them, tropes are here to stay. What are your favourite and least favourite historical fiction tropes?