In Which I Answer a Question You Didn't Even Ask.

This is the review I read earlier today on DearAuthor.com.

Lovely, well-written review.

It brings up an issue that I'm slightly embarrassed to admit has never ONCE occurred to me: the obvious pro-British, anti-French thread running through almost all American-written Regency/Revolution era romance novels. Once you hear (or read) that it exists, it's like, the biggest "DUH" ever. EVER. What can I say? I left all of my major thematic analytical skillz in Mrs. Eriksen's Senior English.

The lovely review vaguely tries to make sense of this, but ultimately offers little by way of answers. Because honestly, who can answer that question definitively? Maybe every single American author of Regencies hates all things French (highly doubtful). Maybe they all favor hereditary monarchies (possible, but only in hypothetical, ridiculously small countries where the nannies are particularly virginal and marriageable). Maybe they're all pacifists who abhor the violence writing about the French Revolution entails (probable, though the vast majority of heroes seem to be badass retired military).

I suspect the comments section of the post will continue growing, both with ideas about the whys and wherefores, and also with commentary about the book in question, which I confess I have not added to my TBR list. Too many books, not enough interest in this particular one despite the largely positive review. I also know that I tried to form a response in the comments section with my theory about this phenomenon, but a) it was too long and b) I realized I hadn't blogged in a while. So without further ado...

REASONS I THINK THERE IS A PRO-BRITISH, ANTI-FRENCH BIAS IN REGENCY/REVOLUTIONARY ROMANCES WRITTEN BY AMERICANS.

Small Print/My Qualifications For Addressing This Issue: I write as an attempted writer of romance, a long-time reader of romance, a person who lived in Paris for a year, and a person who dated a Brit for three years.

Firstly and foremostly, it is important to note the "written by Americans" part of the thesis (is that a thesis? I didn't make an argument. Mrs. Eriksen is going to kill me). The "written by Americans" is key because anything anti-French written by a Brit makes some sense (old habits and all that), but it makes no sense for our bias to play out this way. During the Regency period, we were at war with Britain (though it might not have been officially declared... I don't remember), and they burned down the White House. There was no Special Relationship, only sailor impressment and shore raids. Fun! Also the French Revolution, while bloody and brutal, was modelled on and inspired largely by our own Revolution, and it could be argued that theirs would not have played out the same way (if at all) if ours had not been so successful.

So we should have a natural inclination toward the French side in these matters, right?

HA!

Here's THE THING: While writing books with a pro-French bias would make more sense for American writers historically speaking, there is the entirely other matter of culturally speaking.

Most obviously, there's the fact that the French speak French. Books can most certainly be written for Americans/English speakers in English with the understanding that the characters are actually speaking French. But as a reader, when I realize that the characters are speaking a different language than what I'm reading I find it distracting, and as a writer I would be terrified of getting something wrong. Changing the language can change the entire tenor of someone's character. It changes their tone of voice, it changes their mannerisms, it can even change the way they look. Writing for a (major, fully fleshed-out) character in a language that is not the language that they're actually speaking is really intimidating to me as a fledgling writer, and I can't imagine it being a wholly comfortable concept for others.

Also, while there are obvious differences between American and British temperament (obvious, obvious differences), there are still many, many similarities. Possibly stemming from the shared language. But in general it's easier to get into the head of the Brit and to write their motives and personalities and not feel like you're making stuff up.

Eddie Izzard said it best when he said "I like the French, but they can be... fucking French." What does that mean? It means that they think differently from us. Not in a bad way, not in a wrong way, but in an incredibly generalized way. They value different things in their romances, in their sex, and in their expectations for relationships. They aren't nameable, definable differences. It's just about perceptions of what's important. It's cultural. And again, as a writer, I would feel like an absolute fraud trying to write about something I didn't understand, or trying to fake it.

You don't have to fake it as much writing Brits. Which is why any French-Revolutionary characters we run in to are usually women (at least they have that in common with the author), and have been Anglicized. Like in the book that was reviewed; the heroine is French, but raised in London, working for the British government. Or in Spymaster's Lady. It turns out the French spy in Joanna Bourne's most excellent Regency-period novel is... Welsh.

It's not really pro-or-anti anything, to be honest. It's about what and who is comfortable to write about. What's familiar, and what's not. And that's all I have to say about that.