I’ve been doing a lot of reading recently and one thing I’m beginning to notice more and more in the world of gay historicals is that some books are seeming very familiar.
It’s a bit of a worrying trend, and while it’s not “wrong” per se, it’s not exactly something I’m keen about, and something I really hope doesn’t continue.
What seems to be happening is, as writers think “what shall I write next?” or “I’d like to write gay historicals, but what about?” some are taking pre-existing ideas and simply converting it to “the gay.”
This impatience with this trend has been growing in me for a while, and it reached a head this week when I was reading “Checkmate” which is about gay musketeers. Now – if I had tackled this subject, I’d be very conscious of the huge fanbase of the Dumas books and the great (and the not so great films). I think I’d probably write about one musketeer, on the fringes perhaps, who meets someone in the course of his duties–defnitely being careful not to take more than “he’s a musketeer” from the era. But what the authors of this book have done is to have – no surprise – THREE musketeers who meet another man who (shock) isn’t a musketeer. The three amigos are hard drinking, hard shagging types too – and one of them has a Dark Past™. Sounds familiar?
Now, while I haven’t read further than that, and I’m pretty sure that the plot won’t include the Queen’s necklace, the Duke of Buckingham and a mysterious ex-boyfriend of the musketeer with a Dark Past™ with a fleur-de-lys tattoo, you can’t be too sure…

"Bum for All and All for Bum!"
What I’m saying is that no book is original, unless you are some kind of mega genius, and within the Romance genre it’s pretty hard to do something that hasn’t been done before. If you are writing hetero-romance, particularly historical hetero-romance then it doesn’t matter what era you choose, Vikings, Romans, Pirates, Civil War – it’s all be done before. But it doesn’t mean that you take “Gone With The Wind” and make your book about a feisty southern anti-heroine who has a crush on a man she can never have and gets married a bazillion times before finding the man she truly loves only to lose him. Or in the case of gay historicals that you take GWTW and simply keep the main plot but make it gay.
I know that this sounds obvious, but as I say, I see more and more of it. Without naming more names and offending more people, I’ve seen almost direct copies of films and books galore (including The Gay Witness, a contemporary book I reviewed for Jessewave recently) and it makes me a little sad.
Look – I’m not saying that any of my books are original. Standish is probably stuffed full of images and tropes etc that have stuffed themselves into my head during my life. Every Gainsborough film, every Austen book, every historical mini series, I’ve probably taken aspects from them and put them into the book. There’s a duel in the Bois de Bologne, complete with a misty dawn and horses clinking their bits. There’s Venice and love in gondolas. Transgressions has star-crossed lovers who end up on different sides in a Civil War. Familiar aspects, yes – but the over-arching storyline is mine.
After all, people don’t write “The Straight Charioteer” do they?
April 13, 2010 at 12:09 pm
I will now write “The Straight Charioteer” and render this entire post invalid.
Well said. And as I know someone is going to bring up the great “But Shakespeare…”. Shakespeare was a playwright. He was not an author. And he was not attempting to pass off those plays as anything other than zeitgeist allegories. The role of a play in his time was VERY different from the role of a book today. (I can go on about this, but for brevity and “work” I will shut up now.)
Also, much as I love the Macs, we’d have to wait a good 500 years to see if any of us come close to Shakespeare, so erring on the side of caution, I think I’ll write my own plots. It’s unlikely that I have THAT degree of timelessness.
xxx
C.
April 13, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Exactly, and as I found out this week, when S wrote Hamlet, there were seven other versions knocking about at the same time.
April 14, 2010 at 8:22 am
Yeah. He wrote to put bums on seats, our Will. Wasn’t averse to nicking other people’s dialogue and ‘improving it’, either….
April 13, 2010 at 12:34 pm
I think the saddest aspect of it that since gay people have had to live secret lives for so long that their voices and the stories of those lives haven’t been heard much. Which means there’s a huge number of stories that haven’t been told before that writers can explore, wihout falling back already on “the gay version of” whatever. Those things can be fun, but in the end, they’re just a bit of a novelty act.
I’ve nothing against taking a situation from a famous story and exploring how it would be different in the main characters were gay, but that’s key – different. You might start on familiar ground, but you shouldn’t end on it!
So I guess I’m not so much saying to the writer – tell your own story! But rather, let the gay characters have their own unique story.
April 13, 2010 at 12:38 pm
This kind of thing is really just fan fiction with the serial numbers filed off, isn’t it? Shouldn’t publishers be a little more cautious than that? Maybe they don’t know…but how could anyone /not/ know the musketeers?!
I do my best to make my plots my own, even though I too, probably add aspects of books I’ve read, TV Series I’ve watched, and snippets of actual history (when set in Australia) to my stories.
It kind of feels/seems lazy to just change names and serial numbers and call it original fiction.
April 14, 2010 at 8:28 am
Well, at least this is mildly altered – I find it impossible that someone didn’t spot Jane Eyre in the plaguarised version a year or so back. I guess that you don’t have to have a comprehensive reading background to start up a publisher!
April 13, 2010 at 7:52 pm
As Meg said, the musketeers one sounds derivative enough to be fanfic – though I’ve noticed there are a few publishers who seem to actively *want* fanfic (I’ve seen two calls for Sherlock Holmes-the-movie-inspired fanfic), which strikes me as weird, but hey, what do I know.
Does the musketeer book have a hot and commanding cardinal, by any chance? I have such a crush on Cardinal Richelieu that if there was smut involving faux-Richelieu and faux-Aramis I’d probably read it LOL
April 13, 2010 at 7:54 pm
oh Richelieu (do not make me spell that again) is in it but the writing was so dire i never got that far, i’m afraid…
April 13, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Interesting. That ties in with the last posting on this blog that I did about small press publishers. I noted that for my own publishing company “We look for stories that haven’t been done before or utilize a fresh take. Give us something that’s not familiar.”
April 14, 2010 at 8:27 am
Exactly. Sadly many presses aren’t so particular.
April 13, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Now wait a minute. A mere dab of research will lead you the the handsome Marquis de Cinq Mars, who Richelieu tried to foist on the tres gay Louis XIII as a distracting lover, and who later got involved in a plot against the state…heady stuff for musqueteers to sort out. I’m sure Rochefort and even Lady De Winter could throw their hats in too. Besides there are juicy backstories for the three (pre-D’Artangan) to interweave.
I guess that was the fun of my Here, And Always Have Been. A little research will easily find us anywhere, anytime. Silly romantics need not “invent” innapropriate contemporary notions.
April 14, 2010 at 8:25 am
Yes – Ken – THAT would be a better story, why don’t people write that kind of story? My point is that literally copying other people’s plots is just lazy writing.
April 14, 2010 at 10:40 am
Even in fanfiction I used to not read the stories which were basically re-tellings of the canon with an extra character stuck in. If I know that story already then I’m going to be looking for something new. I imagine it’s a lot easier for the writers, though, and can be turned out quicker – which is a bonus for publishers who are in the short term business of jumping on what they see as a bandwagon.