Historical Mystery Lovers discussion

Do you prefer a little romance with your historical mystery or does it distract from the action and suspense?

Honestly, I think it depends. If it takes away from the action and prevents the story from moving forward, then yes, it bothers me. If it's just a sub-plot that adds to the story, then I don't mind it.

Case-in-point: I loved the first two (maybe three) Lady Julia books. Then the romance stuff got in the way. I keep reading them in the hopes that they go back to the original formula, but so far, not so much. (And no, I don't think the problem was (view spoiler)[Julia and Nicholas finally getting together (hide spoiler)]. I think it had more to do with the fact that the mystery stopped being the central element and Julia turned into this brainless person who couldn't do much without Nicholas.)

C.S. Harris, meanwhile, seems to have gotten it right with the Sebastian St Cyr books. While there is a definite romance sub-plot, it has not affected the stories in a negative way and has only enhanced them and his interactions with Lord Jarvis.

I'm wondering if romance overwhelms the plot for some authors because they are trying to market their books to romance readers as well as mystery readers. If this strategy works, it's a plus for them. You can expect them to continue using it.

I want a personal life for the protagonist and a little romance is often the right addition. Examples: William Monk by Anne Perry and the Gaslight mysteries by Victoria Thompson.

Then there are those that have a personal life with a stable partner: the Pitts also by Anne Perry and Mary Russell / Sherlock Holmes by Laurie R. King. Not sure whether to call them romances!

On the other side, I don't think romance improved the Maise Dobbs series by Winspear, but I still enjoyed the stories.

Regarding earlier comments: I agree Lady Julia got much too dependent and think the covers on those books back up the comment about marketing to romance readers. They sure looked like 'bodice rippers'.

Ant I MUST read St Cyr; everyone has good things to say about them.

I agree the St. Cyr have a wonderful balance between the romantic and the mystery. I will say that as a romance reader, I do like some romance in the books I read. I think it's a good idea for the writer to leave you 'lusting' for a little more instead of wishing there was a little less.

I agree I do enjoy a sub plot as in the St Cyr, Charles Finch, or Anne Perry novels. I think it makes the main character more of a "real" person. Though I will say as much as I enjoy the back story it does make reading the series in order necessary to me.

Like most, I think it depends. If it makes a more well rounded character, I'm okay. If the book starts to be a romance with a little mystery thrown in - NO

Like all of you, I think it depends. If I'm reading a mystery, I want the focus to be on that (if I wanted a romance, I could only pick one up) but if don't mind it when it rounds out the character.

I do like romance in my historical mysteries (or any mystery, tbh) but as a subplot. I quickly grow tired of the CSI (tv show) procedural format where it's always just the case of the week while the characters hardly change at all. I can't get invested if that's the case. I much prefer characters who have ongoing issues that are going on in their personal lives that they have to navigate as they are solving the newest case. That personal aspect is what makes the characters seem real to me.

And I also add my agreement that the Sebastian St Cyr books strike a perfect balance b/t the main character's personal life and his ivestigations. The Gaslight Mystery series is another one.

Veronica, I agree! I love a mystery/romance combo. Just a straight-up mystery isn't interesting enough because the characters always remain two-dimensional. I love reading about other things going on in the characters' lives as the mystery unfolds!

Michelle wrote: "Veronica, I agree! I love a mystery/romance combo. Just a straight-up mystery isn't interesting enough because the characters always remain two-dimensional. I love reading about other things goi..."

But there are obviously people out there who enjoy just the straight procedural approach to storytelling or else CSI wouldn't be on its millionth season. ;)

Veronica wrote: "But there are obviously people out there who enjoy just the straight procedural approach to storytelling or else CSI wouldn't be on its millionth season. ;) "

I'm one of them, lol!
While I don't mind a little bit of focus on the characters' personal lives, when a police procedural gets bogged down with those details and turns into more of a soap opera, that when I know its time to call it quits!

I can be OK with it, but the book needs to be clear on whether it's a historical mystery, or a historical romance. It's hard to do a book or books that are both in equal amounts, without at least one of those elements suffering.

ETA: And I think it works better in mysteries that are more character development heavy, rather than police procedurals. Where it usually reads like a bad soap, to me anyway.

I like a balance between the mystery and the romance- easier said than done and even more difficult to find a series that consistently nails it. The C.S. Harris series is definitely on my radar...

I won't say mixing mystery and romance can't be done. I have yet to read a series that mixes the two successfully. One example that comes to mind of a bad mix is the Ursula Blanchard series by Fiona Buckley. Ursula's "romances" tended to overwhelm the actually mystery and take away from the story. At times I felt like I was reading about a high school girl not a grown Elizabethan woman.

I prefer not to have romance in my mystery because it often comes off corny and that can dilute the action and suspense.

As long as it is well done I don't mind some romance.

Has anyone read Tasha Alexander or Lauren Willig's Pink Carnation series? These seem like two series that might have the right mystery/romance combo. Would you call these historical mysteries or historical romance?

I have read both. I loved the Tasha Alexander series and consider it historical mystery with some romance. Willig is harder for me to classify. It seems more like women's fiction though I don’t like that phrase(it seems to fit here) with some romance and some mystery.

Michelle wrote: "Has anyone read Tasha Alexander or Lauren Willig's Pink Carnation series? These seem like two series that might have the right mystery/romance combo. Would you call these historical mysteries or ..."

I've read Alexander's series and found the balance to be good in the first few books and then tipping slightly more toward romance in the latter ones. Willig's books, to me, are more romance with a bit of mystery thrown in. I read the first few and then realized that they were a little too romantic for my taste.

Hmmm...interesting...Thanks for that, Meghan!

Thanks, Candace! I'm very intrigued by how different series are classified!

I agree with classifying the Pink Carnation series as Historical Romance, and they're a fun read, but more romance than mystery/espionage.

The Stephanie Laurens 'Casebook of Barnaby Adair' series is another I'd classify as more romance than mystery, but they're fun, too.

Thanks, Chris!