Historical Romance via Sword of Rome by Constance O’Banyon
Mar
'08
Yesterday I was shelving my sections (as I am prone to do at work, since it’s my job) and I came across this book called Sword of Rome by Constance O’Banyon. I’m not one for much historical romance; in fact, I’d given “romance” as a genre a chance a few years ago and found it much too simple and “airy” for my tastes. The only books that I’ve found to be more than acceptable in the overall genre of recent paperback romance is the Black Dagger Brotherhood books by J.R. Ward. Why? They’re well-written, they have great storytelling and interesting plots, and there is an entire mythology behind the characters. Unfortunately for me, however, most of the fans are interested in the hostile, buff, sexy vampires, rather than the innerworkings of the world, so I fear I’ll never have all of my questions answered! (It’s still fun to theorize.)
In any case, I was surprised when this book caught my eye because of this, and not wanting to dismiss it based on genre, I brought it home to read it. I figured that the interest lied in the fact that it was based in Julius Caesar’s time as dictator; although I find more interest in Octavian’s politics, any element of Ancient Rome fascinates me. What surprised me was how detailed the book described the ongoings of Rome at the time, and how horribly inaccurate it was. But I’ll get to that in a moment.
Apparently it’s the second novel in a series, but the bookcover didn’t say as much. I found out later when I looked it up online trying to figure out why in the world there would be so many inconsistencies. (The first is called Lord of the Nile.) It’s about this bedouin princess named Adhania who, in her daring and rashness, disgraces herself and her family (in numerous ways, mostly involving doing things that “princesses” and “women” should not do). Her brother Ramtat who is some kind of lordly, respected man, but who is also leader of her family, sends her to Rome to stay with Queen Cleopatra. His intent is to straighten her up. She is instructed to do everything the Queen asks of her, but finds herself in conflict when the Queen instructs her not only to do the things she was punished for, but to act as a spy, put her life (and virginity) in danger, and stay with a handsome young Roman architect named Marcellus. They fall in love, lots of sexual tension ensues, and Caesar is killed in the Ides of March. Everyone eventually lives happily ever after. Except Caesar.
Now, it seems to me that O’Banyon’s “authority” on the topic of Rome at this time came from her reading of a few Shakepeare plays (where no doubt she gathered Marc Antony’s lovesick personality and completely disregareded his military prowess) and perhaps a quick skimming of a Wikipedia article on life in Ancient Rome. Maybe she picked up a few lines or facts that she liked the most, inserted them in the novel, and continued on her way. In fact, she’s done all sorts of fun things with facts and information; somehow Caesar’s son with Cleopatra is more than a few years old in 47 BC, and let’s not even mention that Cleopatra has a living sister. (The sister is a main character and is necessary to form the ties between Cleopatra and Adhania - the former is Cleopatra’s sister’s sister-in-law. So while I suppose it’s necessary for the plot, could there not have been any other way to tell this story?)
I have a new reason for not liking historical romance, other than the awkwardness of reading sex scenes between two people who met three days ago while you’re sitting in your living room listening to your boyfriend play video games. There’s also the simpleness I mentioned above - uncomplicated plots which follow one of a certain number of outlines (ask my mom, she’s explained all of them to me, and they’re not very exciting), female characters who seem to either be completely helpless or helplessly complete, and strong, domineering male figures who must “take” or “possess” the women but never reveal their feelings at a convenient time. I could go on. My new reason, however, is historical inconsistency. I generally like historical novels because the ones I choose to read have a reputation of being well-researched and ridden with details necessary to the plot but also historically accurate. While they may fictionalize historical characters, they don’t make up any significant princesses who would in all reality be killed whether or not they showed signs of taking over Cleopatra’s throne. Any future threats would have been eliminated.
I wanted to look it up online to provide very specific examples, but it seems accuracy in historical romance is not a very wide topic of discussion. I don’t have the intention of rereading the book to point out all the things “wrong” with it. I just want to note that Lord of the Nile came out only six months before Sword of Rome did. I realize that this doesn’t necessarily mean that the book was written only in a few months - it could have already been in the works before Lord of the Nile was even finished, they could have been written simultaneously, or they could have been written long before they were released with the plan to release them in the same year. I don’t know. I don’t believe, however, that it was very well researched, and I’m willing to bet that Lord of the Nile wasn’t either (nevermind that I gather this is the story of Cleopatra’s siter and Ramtat’s love and marriage, I’m sure there are tons of other made up historical figures and time-removed events in Egyptian history).
This brings me to my thoughts. The few articles I’ve read about historical romance accuracy (and there were certainly few) seem to agree that historical romances should be as accurate as possible, but it’s okay to take a few liberties here and there. As long as you feel like you’re in the correct environment, it doesn’t matter if some details are switched around. Okay, my mother’s arguments include: “I haven’t come to read history, I’ve come to read romance,” and “Who cares about the historical innaccuracies if the romance is good?” Though not in those words exactly, her arguments I’m sure suffice to speak for a lot of historical romance genre readers. They probably truly don’t care about accuracy. Fine, that’s great, but as someone who wishes she could expand her horizons and fully enjoy more genres of novels, I want the books to be more accurate!
It’s the ol’ Nora Roberts/James Patterson argument - would you rather have a very concise, well-written, beautifully told novel that you’ll remember? Or a series of shoddily composed, quickly compiled, same-story, same ideas, same everything books over the span of a year? Several books by your favorite author who doesn’t put all of her/his work into it, or one every few years that is so brilliant it blows you out of the water?
Perhaps this is a bookseller’s argument, as we are sworn to despise authors like Cassie Edwards who take up entire bookshelves with their fifty books, all formulaic and unpurchased. (Although Cassie Edwards has issues of her own.) But in the case of historical works, I’d rather have something that I can read without having to stop every other page and pick out errors. Perhaps it’s just my personality. What I would like to see is a romance novel in Ancient Rome written by a Roman historian. Someone who knows the funny details, the quirks of Roman life, but who isn’t afraid to research the pieces she doesn’t quite remember or isn’t very familiar with. Someone who can succesfully piece together the romance and the Rome-mance (I have to credit Richard for that one).
On that note, the book wasn’t entirely bad. The plot outline was interesting, though I feel it was a little “dumbed down” in that even though it was plainly obvious where the characters were in each changing scene, it would tell you “Rome” or “Egypt” anyway. Of course, if anyone can’t figure out that the desert scenes with the bedouin tribe are in Egypt and the city landscapes with Caesar, the Senate, and the Master Architect of Rome aren’t in Rome, then I suppose the headings would be necessary. It brought in some politics, but not too much - after all, it is a romance - and it invited the reader into Roman intrigue and betrayal. If I were to rate it on a scale from one to five, I’d give it a good solid three for the writing style, construction, effort, and character development. The book also gets some points for the title, which I’m pretty sure is not just sexual innuendo. There’s a text titled In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won the Roman Empire by Adrian Goldsworthy, in which there is a chapter called “The Shield and Sword of Rome: Fabius and Marcellus.” It seems too much of a coincidence to me. I’m not sure if O’Banyon found this in her Google searches for information, or if she actually read this or similar books, but she certainly didn’t get the title from the board game.
Now, assuming you’ve gotten through all that without falling asleep or becoming very irate and closing the browser window: I’m curious about your thoughts. What do you think about accuracy in historical romances? Is it necessary, as I feel it should be, or do you have much the same ideas as my mother - you’re reading for romance, not history, so it doesn’t matter? And if you answer the latter, why then read historical romances at all? Any other interesting things to add to the argument?
4 people found this entry interesting.
Leave A Reply
We have the same problem with historical romances. Though I have read enough of them to simply not care *I usually just skip over the sex scenes*. Though for me I can still read historical romances, my problem comes when there is no plot and nothing to the storyline except for sex. Those disgust me. As for the accuracy in the story, it would depend on the storyline (as with any genre of book). If the storyline called for a little fudging or a lot of fudging then I could handle it. But it would have to be believable, always believable. If it isn’t believable then it is no good.
If you want some good historical romances, Michelle just let me know. I can send you a list of some really good ones that have wonderful plots with little sex and I can also send you some that have wonderful plots with lots of wonderful sex, lol.
Mar
'08
I’m not too big into romance novels anyway (although I really like the outlander series by Diana Gaboldon.. READ THEM!!, and when I was younger, I loved the clan of the cave bear series…), but I don’t think it’s really necessary for fictional books to be 100% accurate. They’re written to entertain, not to educate.
Mar
'08
I agree, though there are those of us who find the education just as entertaining as the story. I’ve heard nothing but good things about Gabaldon. Actually, even customers are now egging me on to read the Outlander series…
Mar
'08
Oh yes, Michelle, read the Gabaldon series. I beg you. I would wage money on them that you would like them. They are wonderful. I promise they are wonderful. They are simply amazing. Claire & Jamie are simply amazing you will find yourself falling in love with both of them. Please read them and then tell me what you think. I highly recommend them. I have read the series about six times so far and every time I read it something new pops up. It is a wonderful series. Even better then The Clan of the Cave Bear series. Though I recommend that series too. Though you will be reading the first one next month in Pages. But read Outlander (the first in the Gabaldon series). I am positive you will enjoy it.
Mar
'08