Quote:
Originally Posted by tch65721
It is the book that matters. Perhaps a better label would be "Historical Romance" or "Romance with historical elements"?
I started reading more about a year ago and one thing that stands out to me is that romance has invaded nearly every other genre. In some cases it has nearly taken over. I find that many books labeled Historical Fiction are really romance novels in a historical setting. I've picked up one or two fantasy series which started out as fantasy but by the third book or so had turned into a romance in a fantasy setting. Nearly all of these books were written by women. Perhaps I've made unfortunate choices but from what I've seen women seem more likely to introduce a strong romantic element. If that is true, then perhaps the author's sex is a consideration.
|
No because these aren't romances. A romance focuses on a couple chemistry and how they fall in love and they're always a happy ending. No happy ending no romance. If it's a tragic ending then it's a love story not a romance.
Historical Fiction tells a story about characters in a time period. It focuses on that instead of two people falling in love and the physical attraction they have for one another. Even if there are some romantic elements in a novel that doesn't make it a romance novel. The two are clearly different from one another.
The title of this thread is appropriate. It is clear the OP was trying to cater to us females by showcasing two female authors who write Historical Fiction.
By the way the books in question would be called: Women's Historical Fiction or Historical Fiction for Women that is the genre they are in.