How Much History In A Historical Romance*?

* I've changed this title since this entry was first posted because I want to make something more clear than in the first version: I'm only talking about historical romances, not historical novels. What's the difference? I think that in a historical romance, history is used to enhance the romance. In a historical novel, romance is, or can be, used to enhance the history. Different genres, different focus, different use of history. And I'm speaking about the North American market as I see it right now.

Now back to the blog:

I've been participating in a very interesting discussion on a writers' loop about the nature of history in a historical romance, as in "how much?"

Here's my take on this subject: I don't think there's any right or wrong when it comes to the amount and/or nature of historical events an author chooses to use. That's a matter of style, similar to the number and nature of love scenes.

I do think there's a distinction between political history (major political events) and social history (how people lived from day to day). As a person and a writer, I'm much more interested in social history than I am political history. To be sure, the big events are going to have an impact on the characters and the story, but not to the same extent as if I'm putting my characters in the equivalent of the Oval Office.

This discussion tends to get heated, I think, because of the implication that writers who prefer social history to political history are lazy. Or less intelligent. Or worst of all, they just don't care. It's not that they have a different preference; they are wrong and lesser writers for it.

To me, that falls into the same category as chastising other writers because they choose to write about sexual intimacy in a way different from you. It's a style choice, and not a question of one way being "right" or "better" than another. It's a writer's personal preference.

I've also heard that some readers miss so-called "meaty" historicals (again, let me emphasize I'm talking about historical romances, not historical novels), with lots and lots of historical facts. Here's why I don't write such books. First, I don't get a thrill out of describing big battles or major political machinations. It just doesn't float my boat, and writing has enough angst inherent in the effort that I don't want to force myself to write something I don't enjoy. Second, the sales simply aren't there. Maybe people have shorter attention spans -- although those George R.R. Martin tomes would seem to contradict that -- or maybe the next big blockbuster historical romance just has yet to be written. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that for now, the big, "meaty" historical is a tough sell. So basically, I'd be doing a lot of work and spending a lot of time (I think at least a year, if not more), on something that I really wouldn't enjoy writing and then might not sell. And in the meantime, my income would take a serious nose-dive. Not exactly an attractive proposition, is it?

Does that mean nobody should try? Oh, heck no! If you're really missing those big meaty historicals, write one. You might be the one to turn the tide. Or at least wow a publisher enough to give it a try. And who knows? The time may be right that the readers will welcome your book with open arms. There's no predicting what will "hit it big" in this business, which is both a good and bad thing about it.

Now pardon me. I must go serously wound both my hero and my villain, who are not fighting a major historical battle. It's personal and one-on-one. 'Cause that's the way I like it.

History vs Fantasy

My daughter has a degree in English and Medieval History. Her mother writes historical romance novels. Wanna know what she likes to read?

Fantasy, or as we call them around here, "Shadow of the Wolf of the Moon" books. Because really, it seems like wolves and shadows and the moon feature in just about every title. Kind of like Bride, Desire, Rogue, etc. in historical romance titles.

Anyhoodle, I finally asked her why she likes those books, especially the pseudo-medieval ones, but doesn't read historical romances or historical novels.

Here answer was, basically, because she doesn't know what's going to happen in the fantasy books.

That's her main problem with historical novels especially -- she knows what, historically, has to happen and so will happen.

With historical romances, there are also certain givens (the hero and heroine will survive, for instance) that take away from the surprise factor.

I'm wondering how many potential or former historical romance readers have wandered over to fantasy because they want a more unpredictable read.

Time Period Popularity

A couple of things have conspired to have me thinking about the popularity -- or unpopularity -- of certain time periods in historical romances this week. One was an article in the paper talking about a TV show called Mob Stories II. The executive producer of the show, Peter Gentile, is quoted as saying, "Mafia stories have replaced westerns on television."

The other is the commercials for the new movie, Elizabeth: The Golden Age.

I'm not sure about mob stories taking the place of westerns on TV, but I do have a couple of theories about why Westerns became unpopular in romance novels.

One reason also dogs the medievals and Victorian era romance novels, and I call it the Hygiene Issue, aka Reality. A lot of modern readers get their ideas of history not from school or books, but from movies or TV, and for a long time, Hollywood portrayed the old West as dusty, but not filthy. Ditto the Middle Ages. Take a look at Errol Flynn's Robin Hood. Those folks are clean, and so are their castles. But then Hollywood got a little more realistic. The reality of the lack of hygiene came in, along with more violence.

Thanks to adaptations of Dickens, a lot of people think poverty, ignorance and dirt when they think of Victorian England.

I find it interesting that Elizabethan and Restoration England apparently do well as settings for historical novels, but not romances. Elizabethan England also seems to work in movies. (Shakespeare in Love was just on the other night, too.) Actually, in the case of Elizabethan England, I think it works better in movies in part because of the clothes. They can look sumptuous on the screen, but if you try to describe those bloomers in a book? Sounds a little silly -- and that's without the cod pieces. Don't want a hero wearing silly outfits!

Then there's Regency England, the most popular setting for historical romances at the moment. Again, I think there are a few reasons for this, but one is certainly due to Jane Austen, who confined her stories to the upper middle class. That's the level of society most often portrayed in current historical romances, too. Everybody's clean, everybody's polite, and all the factories, child labor, pollution and riots are out of sight.

Do historical romance readers really have a much lower tolerance for, well, history? Are they truly unwilling to face the realities of the past? Do they just want what's basically an adult fairy tale? This is something I grapple with all the time, because I hate to think it's true, even if the market seems to tell me so.

What's in an adjective?

"Once you label me, you negate me."
-- Soren Kierkegaard

What's with the philosophizing, you may ask?

I had a long, delightful conversation with a fellow writer the other day. As we were yakking away about what we're doing, the state of publishing and the world in general, she did something that startled me for a milli-second at the time, but I've been thinking about ever since.

She referred to her romance novels as "novels." No adjective, no qualifier, no label, not the very general "book," but "novel."

I was startled because I don't think I've ever heard a romance writer refer to her work that way, simply as a novel. And I've been thinking about it and wondering, why not? We, and by we, I mean my fellow genre writers, do write novels, after all.

I think there's more to it than just describing the sort of novel I write. I believe there's a subtle stigmatizing afoot. A novel is admirable, literary, worthy of the Pulitzer or Oprah's magic wand o' promotion. A romance novel? Well, that's something else -- and to a lot of people, something a lot less worthy.

Should it be that way? No.

Do I think that's right? No.

Am I ashamed I write romances? Heck no.

I doubt my work will ever be described as "literary" and I won't hold my breath waiting for Oprah to give my book a nod, but I do think my novels are as worthy as some literary novels I've read.

So I'm going to start referring to my published works as novels. Not romance novels. Not historical romance novels. Novels.

Of course, if people want more information, I'll be happy to describe what I'm doing in more detail using those adjectives. But first and foremost, I am writing novels.

And that's what I'm going to call them.

Historical Reader, Contemporary Writer

Wowsers. I can't believe Margaret let me guest post here today. ME on Margaret Moore's blog. Too freaky for words. I've read every book she's ever published and I'm counting down the days until The Viscount's Kiss and Buggy's story. How Margaret will top that potato-throwing scene in A Lover's Kiss, I don't rightly know. It was a classic romance moment.

So what is a Margaret Moore reader doing writing contemporary romance?

I tried writing historical romances. My first venture into serious romance writing was a 400 page plus monster of a Regency called The Dragon's Protector. I sent it to a former Harlequin editor ('cause I admired Margaret Moore and she writes for Harlequin). The editor was kind. He sent it back with a short, terse note saying I didn't have a historical 'voice.'

I didn't know what that meant. So I asked around. A literary friend read my first page (that was all I allowed her to see). She then held it up to the first page of a published historical novel and asked me if I saw a difference.

You mean besides the total lack of description in my novel (yes, those 400 plus pages were all action and dialogue)? The shorter sentences? The modern slang? The casual dialogue? The missing verbs? The flow of thought writing?

Ummm… yes, all that. And that's the thing, ALL that. There are historical writers (including Margaret) incorporating contemporary elements in their novels. However, they tweak one or two areas, not all. The bare bones are still a historical romance. That's what readers expect.

The process of writing a contemporary romance is also different.
How we do research is a prime example.

A historical writer pores over books and documentaries and talks to academics. Margaret has some great posts on her process. I won't duplicate that good thinking.

Me? I touch and feel and talk to my research. When writing about Maeve, my heroine in Invisible, I emailed one of the top skip tracers on the planet and asked him questions directly. I needed to describe the Wynn Casino in Vegas so I went to the Wynn Casino in Vegas. It is important that I get these details right as many of my readers have also been to the Wynn. They'll know if Maeve's heels click on the tile floor or are muffled by carpet (and they'll email me 'cause I have the best readers in the world).

Some writers can write both contemporary and historical romances well. Those writers are rare. Many can only write (well) one or the other. A turning point in my writing 'career' was discovering which one I was meant to write.

And no, I'm not posting an excerpt from The Dragon's Protector.

*

Kimber Chin writes contemporary romances set in the sexy world of business. Her latest release, Invisible, is a contemporary treasure hunt romance through the world of hidden identities. A world where loyalty and love can be found in the most unexpected places. You can track her down on http://businessromance.com/ where she gives away her favorite eBooks, shares short stories, and posts photos of good looking men in business suits.

The Egyptian

I just finished reading THE EGYPTIAN, by Mika Waltari, a Finnish writer. First published in Finnish in 1943, it was translated and published in the U.S. in 1949. It was the best-selling historical novel up until THE NAME OF THE ROSE by Umberto Eco (first published in 1980, in English in 1983).

The story is about Sinuhe, an Egyptian physician, as well as the pharaoh who tried to establish a monotheistic religion (Akhenatan), Cretan bull dancers, King Tut, Nefertiti, the Hittites... I tell ya, Sinuhe got around. The best part, I thought, was the beginning, where Sinuhe's learning about medicine and rising in pharaoh's court. In fact, it was so interesting in terms of both character and history, I was sure Mika Waltari must have a PhD in Egyptian history.

Nope. Man just did his research.

The latter parts of the book, where Sinhue travels around the Middle East and Crete, weren't quite so interesting, but I still enjoyed it. Sinuhe is a fascinating, very "human" character, and there are a couple of interesting female characters, as well. Kaptah, Sinuhe's slave/best buddy, seems a little over the top (can anybody really talk himself out of so many tough spots?), but he brought the funny, too, which was needed, or the book would have been too grim.

I'd never heard of either the author or this book until I happened upon the Hollywood version, made in 1954, on TV recently. I realized it was some kind of historical film, so I lingered. I first recognized Victor Mature (not an inducement to continue watching.) Then I saw the actor playing the Egyptian, Edmond Purdom. Who is that? thought I, for he was a lot younger and better looking that the picture on the IMDB. And then there was Peter Ustinov, playing Kaptah, and I was hooked. When it was over, I looked it up in our movie guide, saw that it was based on a book, and knew I had to read it.

Since I have Peter Ustinov's autobiography, DEAR ME, I also looked up what he had to say about this movie. Not flattering, to put it mildly. However, he did reveal that Sinuhe was supposed to be played by Marlon Brando, until he saw the final script and suddenly got "sick." That would have been...weird.

The movie left out a lot of the story -- no surprises there. The whole Cretan portion is gone, for instance (and no great loss, IMHO). The fate of the two interesting women was very different as well. I don't think movie audiences in 1953 would have accepted their actions, which basically involved utilizing their sexuality to get out of a terrible predicament in the case of one woman, and to exact revenge in the case of another.

I enjoyed and was impressed enough by THE EGYPTIAN that I wanted to read another of Waltari's historical novels, specifically THE ROMAN. I like reading about Rome. Unfortunately, none of the libraries where I live carried THE ROMAN.

So I bought it. Hardcover. I believe that means I qualify as a fan.

Rome, Season Two -- oh, my Pullo!

We're finally watching Season Two of Rome.

I love Pullo, the big dumb lug. I love that he's not clever enough to be sly, and I especially like that he knows he's not smart, and when he's done something stupid, he's sorry. It doesn't hurt that he's played by Ray Stevenson. Those are some great blue eyes there.

I also really like how they're using non-famous Romans in the series. Indeed, if I could change anything about the series, it'd be that they do a lot more of that, and have the famous historical folks and events way in the background. It'd be different and interesting.

I suspect it would have been a much harder sell, though. I can just hear somebody protesting, "But why would anybody care about a bunch of no-names in ancient Rome?"

Why does anybody care about the "no-names" in The Office? Or on all those CSI shows? Or Law and Order?

Because the writers make us care. Or they should, if a series is to be successful. A novel, too. If I don't care about the characters, I'm not going to continue giving the story my time and attention.

And as for the ancient Rome...that's just the setting. If the characters are universal enough (having the same desires/motives/needs we all do), it should work if it's set in ancient Rome, Egypt or outer space. It's the people more than the place that makes a story successful -- although don't get me wrong. The place is important. It can add a lot to the characters -- to their external motives, to their manner, their dialogue, the activities they engage in. They should, on the surface, seem very much rooted in their own time and place. The universal belongs in the deeper, underlying feelings and motives that drive them. That's why historical novels work; because we can relate to those characters on that level even though we live in very difference times and places.

With Rome, I care a lot more about Pullo and Veronus than I do about Mark Antony and the rest of the famous historical figures, in no small part because I don't know what's going to happen to Pullo and his friend. I know what's going to happen to Mark Antony and Augustus. And I desperately want my man Pullo to have a happy ending.

An interesting journey this morning

As I wrote yesterday, I was planning to blog about the two basic plots in creative fiction: Someone goes on a journey, and a stranger rides into town. I'd done some thinking about the appeal of each, and why I tend to choose one over the other. I'd also come to the conclusion that they were both parts of the same story: the stranger riding into town has, in a way, arrived at the end of his or her journey and, in my stories at least, is about to reap the rewards for the hardships he or she has faced during that journey (after facing a few more, of course, or I wouldn't have much of a book).

But first, I thought I should try to find the origin of that theory, so I did a little googling. I discovered it's from a book by an American writer named John Gardner, THE ART OF FICTION. He's not to be confused (as I was for a minute) with the novelist John Gardner who wrote James Bond novels.

So now we know. (And I plan to try to get that book from the library.)

I also found an article entitled The Brief History of a Historical Novel by Max Byrd. It makes for fascinating reading in general, but what struck me was this comment, about the "two basic plots" theory: "In fact, that’s only one plot, seen from two different points of view."

That's along the lines of what I was thinking: the "someone" who goes on a journey becomes the stranger who rides into town. Or to put it as I see it, you can tell the story from the POV of the stranger on the journey, or the POV of the folks in the town or, in the case of my historical romances, both (the stranger and somebody in the town). That's part of the reason I enjoy writing historical romances -- two protagonists, two major, different points of view, twice the fun!

In my books, the stranger riding into town is often the hero, but certainly not always, and in fact, some of my best-received novels have had the women ride into town (TEMPT ME WITH KISSES, THE OVERLORD'S BRIDE -- and hey, the book I'm writing now, THE WARLORD'S BRIDE, I just realized!).

Whether the hero or heroine, the stranger represents a change that's come upon the other main character -- nothing is going to be the same after that stranger arrives. In that sense, the "town" character is about to go on a journey, too, but it's an emotional one, not a physical one.

The stranger arriving has already been on a journey, both physical (to get to the place) but also emotional (that's part of his or her backstory). He or she has learned much (but not everything they need to learn), likely suffered, and now is coming to the end of the journey, although they may not know it.

But to separate them a bit again, what's the appeal, for me, of "the stranger rides into town" versus sending a protagonist on a journey?

The stranger arriving appeals to me in part because I write books set in the past, and with that kind of story, the stranger stands in for the reader, being introduced to a new place and new culture. Of course, that works with the journey stories, too, as the characters are arriving at new places, too -- just more of them.

However, the "stranger in town" also happens to tie in to my personal history. We moved a few times when I was a child, so I'm familiar with the desire to find out who's who and what's what in a new place.

The other reason has to do with my skills and preferences as a writer. I don't enjoy writing description and I don't think it's my forte. If your characters are continually arriving at new locations, that makes for a lot more description.

But I must say I like the notion that there's really only one idea at the very heart and depth of any story, one that nevertheless allows for infinite variety.

It's that things change. People change, their world changes. Nothing stays the same. Sometimes we choose change, sometimes it's foisted upon us, but it's unavoidable, and in that sense, we're all on a journey.

Where are you putting the emphasis?

Because it's finally spring and so time for new beginnings, let's talk about pitches today. One thing I've noticed over the years is that fledgling authors sometimes make things more difficult for themselves by putting the emphasis on the wrong element of the story.

For instance, as a reader of historical novels, I'm interested in historical events, but I care about them most in terms of their impact on the characters.

To give you an example: I could say, "My book is about the Battle of Agincourt and its aftermath."

Battles can be exciting, and talk about yer conflict BUT this sounds as if the emphasis will be on the history, not the characters and their relationships. If I'm supposed to be writing a romance, this may really set off alarm bells in an editor's mind.

Instead I could say, "The hero of my romance is an English nobleman, the heroine is a French woman. Both their lives will be shattered by the Battle of Agincourt, but that event will also bring them together."

I've got the battle, I've got some of its aftermath, I've got external conflict -- but first and foremost, I've got characters and how this battle is going to affect them.

Read ebooks? Wanna save some $?

I just found out that Diesel Ebooks is offering 20% off on some of my books (pictured here). To get the discount, just go here and key in the following code: MOOR06478

That has to be activated, but it should be done soon, if not already.

What's really cool is that this offer includes KISS ME QUICK and KISS ME AGAIN, the prequels to my August, 2008 release, A LOVER'S KISS.

On another topic: Today, a travel agent was talking about companies "incentivizing" folks to go on trips. That made me cringe and I assumed he'd just made it up instead of saying the slightly more cumbersome "providing incentives". However, I checked the dictionary and yes, that word actually exists. But it still doesn't sound right to me.

This sort of thing can be a problem when you write historical novels. Sometimes, you use a word that actually existed much earlier than most folks assume. You may be right, but readers assume you're wrong and think you haven't done your research.

I'm guilty of jumping to that conclusion myself. I was once pulled right out of a Regency by the word "ego." Turns out, according to Merriam-Webster's, it was first used in 1789. So the author wasn't wrong; it just sounded like it. Nevertheless, I wondered if she couldn't have substituted "pride," which would have meant the same thing to me in that context and wouldn't have taken me out of the story.

That's something I try to avoid in my own writing, because jarring the reader in that manner is not a good thing to do. I don't think you can completely avoid it, but I try.

Let's give this a go, shall we?

I've been writing a blog on my website for a couple of months now, and decided that it was time to enter the big wide world of "real" blogs -- the kind that allow for comments and feedback.

While type of things will I be blogging about? Well, I'm a writer, a published author of over thirty historical romance novels and novellas, so writing and my life as an author will be a major subject of my musings.

I'll be writing about my life in general, because it's a little goal of mine to dispute the notion that writers are basically glorified typists. You know, we just sit down and type and voila, there's a book! Heck, anybody can do it, right? If only you had the time....

And basically anything else that strikes my fancy, like my recent discovery of the TV series Stargate SG1. Where the heck have I been that I've missed this show??

To get me started today, I'll reveal that I'm starting a new novel. It's a medieval historical romance (my personal preference) called HERS TO DESIRE and it's due in four months. That's about how long it takes me to write a book. I don't schedule my writing deadlines four months apart, though. That way lies madness...and burn-out. Plus, writers have other things to do with the job other than the actual writing, revising, editing, and agonzing.

I'd already written the first draft of the first scene, so this morning, I revised that to get up to speed , and while doing so had a major brainwave about a possible future development with a secondary character. Basically, I just needed somebody to show up with some important information for the plot, but then I thought, Hey, maybe I could use this guy for that. That would be kinda neat. It means this previously no-name minor entity will have a larger role to play, and that's fine by me, because these are the moments that make writing a first draft fun.

First Review - whoo hoo!

My January release from HQN Books, KNAVE'S HONOR, (which is really out at the end of December) just got its first review and four stars from Romantic Times. Faith V. Smith at RT says:

"Moore's medieval starts on an exciting note and maintains that sensation over the course of the whole book. She's created a great hero and heroine who take on a vile, well-written villain, and the love scenes, even though they're mild, add a great deal to the story."

Whoo hoo! That's nice, eh?

But let me talk about my "mild" love scenes. No, I don't write super-sexy books. And the level and amount of sexual activity will vary from book to book. There are two basic reasons why.

First, I came to romance via the stories of Charlotte Bronte, Jane Austen and Errol Flynn movies, none of which has explicit scenes of sexual activity. So for me, romance doesn't necessarily include explicit sexual activity, and in fact, the real fun is to be found in the foreplay that isn't physical, but mental and verbal.

However, because I recognize that the physical component of a relationship is important, I will (usually) include a consummation scene. Note I don't call it a "love scene." I consider just about every scene of my hero and heroine together a love scene, whether there's a physical expression of passion, or not.

The other major factor that determines how much sexual activity takes place in my books stems from my particular background. I am old enough to remember when it was considered a great shame if a girl got pregnant without being married, and not just for the girl -- for her entire family. Was it fair? No, it takes two to make a baby and we're not talking a criminal act here, but that's the way it was. Why the shame? Because it meant the girl had been weak; she had lacked the self-respect and moral backbone to say no. So I simply cannot have my historical heroines blithely jump the hero's bones because hey, she wants him! without so much as a thought for what the serious, social consequences to her might be.

But wait! thinks those of you who've read my books. You have heroines who engage in premarital sex. What's up with that?

Well, they don't do it without considering the consequences. They are aware that they may suffer socially for making love with the hero if that's discovered, but what (hopefully) has happened during the course of the novel is that they have found the strength to overcome their fear of the possible fall-out. Their love and need to be with the hero, to express their love physically, is more important than the fear of being shamed or ostracized. They have found a different kind of strength.

So although sex sells, and especially now, I simply cannot shoehorn in sexual activity if I feel the story and characters don't warrant it. However, if the hero and heroine are married at the start of the story, there's no need for that angst, that journey to such a momentous, life-altering decision. Because there will be no social stigma if they make love, they are free to engage in sexual activity much sooner and more often during the course of the story (which is what will happen in my next medieval, THE WARLORD'S BRIDE).

I may hear from a few readers upset about the lack of sexual activity in KNAVE'S HONOR, because for them, romance novels require a certain amount, but my answer to them is what it is always is in such cases: I wrote the story about those particular people in that particular time the way I felt was true to both.

When Fact Seems Like Fiction...

Recently fashion guru/talent spotter Isabella Blow passed away. I'd seen her on various TV shows, usually sporting really weird looking hats. I always found her rather ridiculous.

Then I read her obituary, and not only am I sorry I thought of her that way, her early life reads like something out of, well, a romance novel.

Her grandmother was Lady Vera Delves Broughton, her father was Sir Evelyn Delves Broughton, 12th Baronet (now there are some names for ya!) and her family had lived in a castle on 15,000 hectares of land since the 14th century, until they had to sell it to pay off Isabella's grandfather's gambling debts. Yes, gambling debts -- and what debts they must have been! Isabella grew up able to see the family castle from the cottage they lived in on the estate. Isn't that like something out of a Regency or Victorian-set historical?

Isabella also, sadly, witnessed the drowning death of her little brother, aged two, in an ornamental pool. Even more sadly, after that, her parents apparently had little interest in their daughters.

Now Isabella's motive for bizarre headgear seems clear. This was a woman seeking attention because she'd been ignored as a child.

Some people's lives really do seem the stuff of novels.

Gotta finish a book!

And not one of my own. As per my birthday resolution to read more novels, I got SALEM FALLS by Jodi Picoult from the library. I had three weeks, which I thought was plenty of time. And then...well, in the time-honored tradition of Messing With Margaret's Plans, stuff happened. So I'm just over half way through and it's due Wednesday. Unfortunately, I can't renew it (somebody else has it on hold). So I'll be reading for awhile tonight.

A couple of thoughts about the story in general: I'm rather taken aback by how much it seems like a Harlequin category romance. The general story line would certainly not be out of place in a Superromance. So far, it appears that the character who would be the hero was wrongly convicted. After getting out of jail, he arrives in a small town, gets a job from the owner of a diner, and they develop a relationship. Then he's accused of committing a second crime.

On the other hand, there are plenty of differences -- in the number of point of view characters, as well as certain other aspects of the plot, and I suspect things are about to take a sharp shift out of romance territory. But so far, I'm still thinking the general gist is very much like a contemporary romance.

One thing I can't do in a historical is have one character describe another by comparing him to a famous actor, and frankly, I'm glad. The main guy in SALEM FALLS is described as looking like Brad Pitt. Now, this works in terms of this story by showing how women, and particularly adolescent girls, might get a crush on him. But I am not a Brad Pitt fan, so I'm finding this really distracting. It pulls me right out of the story.

Comparisons to Brad Pitt notwithstanding, I'm off to read and find out if this story is going to take a major detour from Romance Road.