Madeline Hunter not only writes great historical romances, she also has a column she writes for USA Today called HEA (Happily Ever After) about romance novels more generally. For today’s edition she interviewed a number of historical novelists (including me) about the difference between historical fiction and historical romance (you can read it here).
It was very interesting to me to see how other writers (including Donna Thorland, whose novels I really like and I have been meaning to review) answered some very thought-provoking questions.
You've stumbled across my official website and landed on the front page of my weblog.
“Straight historicals tend to be longer and more detailed, because the time and setting are more central to the story. The main characters are part of the story, not the story itself. Also, a straight historical will sometimes sacrifice the HEA for the sake of the story. That’s rare in a historical romance, unless there’s a sequel that will resolve the problem.”
Yes, that’s an excellent description.
Denny S. Bryce writes a fun column as well in USA Today although her column deals with fan fiction.