Q & A with Sherry Thomas discussion

I've always been curious about this subject. I'm personally neutral on when or where a book is set--I read more by the author.

But so called "exotic locations"--basically anywhere that is not Great Britain these days as far as historical romances are concerned, are said not to sell.

Since part of my upcoming release takes place in India, I am more interested in the subject of unusual locations than, well, usual. :-)

Do you have preferred locations for your books to be set in? Are you more likely to pick up a book if it's a familiar setting? Or are you adventurous?

I'm not "adventurous" in that respect. I'm pretty much North America and Europe. Now if it's an author whom I religiously read, I will venture out. And there is a reason. Usually when novels are set in "exotic locales" there is intrigue afoot. Some spy mission, some mystery and or intrigue. I'm a purist in the sense I don't mix my genres. Romance I want to be about the romance. Mysteries I don't want to see romance etc. I've found some authors can do the intrigue adventure thing without it deterring from the romance but that is very rare.

I'm a proponent of the unusual location and even more of the unusual time period - I'm actually pretty burned out on Regency. But I was talking to a friend of mine who reads everything Regency and she claims it's "easier" for her. Like she already knows the base info and doesn't need or want a history lesson to be able to catch on to a book.

Beverley,

I'm with you in the sense that I want my romance to be all about the romance--which is why I very rarely read romantic suspense.

In NOT QUITE A HUSBAND you will find the romance is front and center, all the time. :-)

Lorelie,

Do you think it's just the general familiarity? Because Jane Austen has been so popular in recent years and the period is sort of familiar even to people who don't do historical romance/fiction? And let's face it, it is a great period in a way, lovely clothes, relative freedom for women, so on and so forth. Not to mention the great Regency hero in Mr. Darcy. (I know strictly speaking, Austen is pre-Regency, but the period referred to as the Regency usually go from very late 1700s to Victoria's ascent to the throne.)

I love an unusual setting! I definitely pick up books that are 'unusual' in setting or tone, if it feels organic to the story and not a marketing thing. I like to learn and feel as if I'm being exposed to something exciting and new.

But there's a line for me. I want the story & characters to feel familiar enough that I'm getting validated. Maybe it's the comfort of the familiar.

Which is the dialectic opposite to the notion of being 'too familiar,' mentioned above. :-)

For me, I think the line between feeling 'validated' and being bored is the characters. If they capture me, I'll probably keep reading, even if the plot/background scenery is stale.

I purposely try to search out historic romantic fiction that is placed some where other than Regency England. I'm also burned out on the Regency thing. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed my fair share, but for me a new location can really breathe life into a novel. I was very excited when I read the preview for NOT QUITE A HUSBAND and realized that it was set, at least in part, away from England. Part of the beauty of a good novel is being swept away into a fantasy world that is beyond our everyday lives. For me, familiarity with the place setting starts to chip away at the fantasy. Plus, I really love history, so anything that expands my knowledge of a new place, as long as it’s not at the expense of the characters or story, is good thing.

I think the general familiarity certainly helps, but then you have to ask yourself what is it about that period that got it published so much to begin with? To *make* it that familiar, ya know? jane Austen's awesome, but I don't know that it's her all in and of herself. IMHO, part of it has to be that the image of the ton fits into the more abstract floaty-dress fantasy image that a lot of readers have fun with. I.e., rich and privileged - wearing a floaty dress. :D

I have to agree with Lorelie. I know for me, when I read a romance I don't want to hear how my couples are struggling financial, and doing whatever they can to keep food on the table. It's what our society has always been fascinated with (perhaps even obsessed), the rich and powerful and their difficulties when it comes to love. And let's face it, the Brits, although it's been centuries since America was colonized, they still hold this allure (their definitive class distinctions, their accents)to us. They are widely considered the elite when it comes to aristocracies and monarchies.

Kris,

I think it was Samuel Goldwyn who first said, "Give me the same thing...only different!" :-) We all want to repeat that last fabulous reading experience. But because we can't virgin-read that same book again, it has to be different, but same!

Louise,

My 2nd book, Delicious, is a Cinderella story. Says so in the first line of the book. And has a very prim and proper gentleman unraveling. :-)

Once I heard author Julie Ortolon speak and she gave the best answer as to why so many historical romances are set in Britain: because Britain is masculine, and makes a perfect backdrop for relationship-driven, i.e., more feminine stories. Though it doesn't explain why the Western is on life support.

Sheri,

I love stories where the location plays a character, like Provence did in Judith Ivory's BEAST. But I'm wary of novels where the exoticism of a locale is played up yet the story itself is the same ole same ole.

I think you will find North-West Frontier, where part of NOT QUITE A HUSBAND is set, a beautiful and interesting place--if dangerous. I'd done a lot of research and had a lot more info I wanted to put in the book, but in the end, story must come first and infodumpery is always an absolute no-no. :-)

Lorelie,

I totally think you've hit on something here. The re-emergence of the Regency as examplified by Jane Austen's and Georgette Heyer's books probably speak of a large nostalgia in our collective psyche. The real time period was beset by war and uncertainty, but the fictionalized rendition of it is full of gorgeous, unspoiled countryside and refinement in clothes and deportment, with none of the soot and complication of the Industrial Age.

Beverley,

Well said.

And you now what other mundane things I don't want to read about in a romance? When couples are just plain annoyed with each other! Annoyance is just such not a turn-on, lol.

I'm not an Anglophile, but I think I certainly understand the allure of Britain, especially that of the British Empire.

Hmmm, I don't go out of my way to look at exotic locale because I find that the unfamiliarity with places leads to the author over describing the place. There also time periods I just generally don't like... which is the Western and the pioneers? (O'Pioneer period and all that) Too much vast space and reality intrusions then flighty balls(there always is a ball) haha. I mainly pick books because of authors, so as long as someone is writing it I'll read it. I usually groan though when the locale is China or something, because then I cringe at how it's portrayed(not that I know enough to be an expert, but there's a certain way that I am used to due to chinese historical dramas) Yet I am also more interested when they attempt I don't know. I won't lie and say I was a bit worried about the road trip in India thing, but it's you, and I loved your previous 2 books and Meredith Duran did a great job about India... so.. =D I wish May 19th would come sooner.

LOL, those chinese historical dramas! I grew up watching them too and am scared of the oldentimes!

And don't worry too much about the road trip. It's still a regular Sherry Thomas book. :-)

Let me quote a review at you:

"There are a few settings that I tend to avoid in my romance reading. Among those settings is the British/Indian setting. But with NOT QUITE A HUSBAND Sherry Thomas has made me make an exception once again. Her amazing descriptive talents made me feel like I was truly in India, taking in the scenery she described so vividly and lifelike. And I liked it! Her writing is powerful, filled with beautiful metaphors and descriptions. It's elaborate without compromising the pace or action and it's descriptive without taking away from the intensity of the emotions."

See, nothing to worry about. :-)

I like an unusual setting. Let's face it every story is boy meets girl; boy & girl fall in love; boy & girl have conflict; boy & girl resolve conflict and live happily ever after. Something has to make the story unique. I want to learn about those people - what makes them tick & I want to learn something else... about a place, a time period, a profession, etc. I don't want to become an expert about it. I don't want the author to give me an dissertation on the subject. But enough to lose myself in a different world. It is a delicate balance. Good authors do it well. Others make it painful. But I seek those books out. I don't want to read the same formula of boy meets girl every time. I like an author who can surprise and "WOW!" me. Maybe even teach me something in a way that doesn't feel like school. I'm 40 years old but this old girl likes to learn a little something new each day.

Liz,

You know what I love about being taken to an unusual place--actually anyplace--in fiction? The little details a skillful author puts in to make the place come alive.

For example, Judith Ivory's BEAST, set partially in Provence. I was an exchange student in Provence for a while, but in a different area, and I was entranced by the way she re-immersed me in Provence, from the familiar--the disdain for all things Parisian--to the stuff I didn't know about--tiny pieces of garlic sprinkled like sea salt.

In the end, whether it's the familiar regency London ballroom, or somewhere in the bowels of a South African goldmine, it's all about worldbuilding. Good worldbuilding makes a setting come alive. Mediocre worldbuilding gives wallpaper.

Agreed!

Hella late *g* but I'm more likely to pick up a book with an unusual setting than not. I'm a big, big fan of world-building (hence my contest scores which dinged me on the "distant" tone and the attention to detail, if not the ripped-to-shreds query I sent to Dear Author last year). When I read a historical romance I want to sink into an entirely different setting than what I am accustomed to. I don't want to read a romance set in 1840s Egypt and feel that the story may as well have been set in 1840s Scotland (or Romancelandia Scotland, that is). One of my pet peeves when it comes to modern-day historical romance is how much it is not of its time. When I pick up a romance by Roberta Gellis, or even early 90s Teresa Medeiros, I never feel as though I'm reading about characters filtered through the 20th/21st century mind-set. I don't mind ballrooms and country houses--just make it real, make it unique, make it unforgettable and right for that story alone.

LOL, Evangeline, better late than never.

I completely agree with you in that a lot of times, exotic locations seem just names, that they could be Egypt or South America or Greenland and it wouldn't make a whit of difference to the story. Wall-paper exotic locations, so to speak.

The of-its-time element is why I love Laura Kinsale's books so much. I never felt what it meant to be Victorian so vividly as when I read The Shadow and the Star, the starchiness, the propriety, the fact that no one ever called each other by their Christian names unless they'd grown up together.

(Ever since then, it has been one of my pet peeves in historicals for people to be overly familiar with each other, in the late 20th century/21st century manner.)

Kathy Anne,

I'm exactly the same. It's about the book as a whole, not about the locales or any other specific element.