It's the Historical Romance Hero, Stupid

Every once in a while, reality whips up and smacks me between the eyes.  That happened to me recently when I finished a contemporary romance novella.  My first love is historical romance, but I write in all genres.  For some reason, I loved this particular contemporary more than just about any other contemp I'd written.  Of course, I loved the story because I loved the hero.  What was different about him?

Whap, right on the forehead.  He was bigger than life.  My heroine even pictured him as a prince in one scene - imagining him with a sash across his chest and a sword hanging by his side.  No wonder so many authors write Navy SEALS, firefighters, and members of the SWAT team.  These contemporary heroes are larger than life, most of the time.  When they go home at night, the probably leave their dirty socks on the bedroom floor and forget to put the toilet seat down.

For a true fantasy man, I'll take history.  That's just my taste, but I think I share it with a lot of readers.  In reality, of course, historical men were no different from the ones we have today.  But it's easier to imagine that they were bigger, better, and bolder, removed as they are from our current reality.

Furthermore, I'd like to argue that a historical hero can be a dangerous character without losing his romantic appeal.  A case in point:

This man had two of his wives beheaded, but I'd still give him a tumble, even though no way in hell would I agree to be his queen.  "But Alice," you say, "the real Henry VIII didn't look anything like that."  Everyone knows the famous portrait of King Henry.  I'd still consider him more heroic than this:

Here's another one of my favorite heroes from English culture.  Petruchio from The Taming of the Shrew, as portrayed by actor Steven Boxer.

Looks as if he's manhandling his woman, doesn't it?  He is.  In this century, I'd kick a guy like this down the stairs and tell him never to darken my doorway again.  But, how can you resist a man who objects to being told to leave with "What, with my tongue in your tail?"  It's clear throughout the play that, although he's taming the shrew, he also respects her wit and independence and would have never been able to stand her sweeter, more obedient sister.  (I actually rewrite the end of this play in my imagination to make it more of a romance.  I figure that her subservience in front of their friends is an act and on the way home they have a good laugh at how they put one over everyone else.)

Here's another man who could never exist in our modern world.

Rhett Butler doesn't take the freeway to work.  Rhett Butler doesn't shop at Costco.  Rhett Butler doesn't Tweet.  We all know what line he's famous for - "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."  (I have to rewrite the end of that story in my head, too.)

In our times, capture by a pirate is an occasion for terror.  Modern women don't really want men to fight a duel for them.  Having the local nobleman demand his right of first night would seem like rape to the bride involved.  In historicals, we can make these things work as romance.  That may not be reality, but it can be our fantasy.

History of Men's Underwear - Part Two

Catch up: Read The History of Men's Underpants - Part One.


Now, where were we? Oh yes. The Middle Ages.Where the codpiece had to be invented to prevent one's tackle from drifting around in the breeze and men "started" to *cough* exaggerate--just a little--what they had...

Some people, and I know this is hard to believe, had some space left over in their codpieces, so they'd keep objects in there too. Handy! Or something-y.

Of course, they stopped exaggerating... It's not like they do it now...

As the trousers got gradually longer,the undergarments grew with them. They resembled the breeches in shape and size, although they were made with a softer material such as silk, cotton or linen. This was important if you were wearing scratchy wool next to the skin. You find, too that underwear was ditched by many in favour of the coattails of the long shirts. Men would pull the tails between their legs and wrap their family jewels in the shirt. I'm just glad I wasn't a washerwoman in the 18th century, that's all I can say.


With many thanks to Anteros - who has an informative post about Age of Sail underwear here.

What do you think spurred the invention of this contraption?

The bicycle, apparently. Men found that they needed a lot of support while riding it-- although you'd think they would have realised this with horses too...

It's sad that after 6000 years we come almost full circle and where we started with the loincloth, with the jockstrap we finish off with the loincloth.

It's always fascinating to write gay romance because of the wonders to be found under a man's overclothes. It's interesting that names are so difficult to pin down. Small clothes, underthings, underwear--all were considered too delicate to mention and a writer risks getting it wrong no matter what she chooses.

But here's to them all. To the braies, the strossers, the drawers, the jockstraps, the loincloths, the smallclothes, the boxer shorts, the codpiece, the hose. Here's to everything that wraps around that small difference between men and women--viva la difference!

Erastes
www.erastes.com
Erastes writes gay historicals, and her first book for Carina is "Muffled Drum" (set during the Austro Prussian War) and will be out in July 2011. It's full of soldiers, horses, angsty love drawers and many many buttons.

History of Men's Underwear - Part One!

By Erastes

Being a writer of Gay Historical Fiction, I find I have to research the subject of what was worn under the overclothes pretty often.

This reminds me of the old joke:

Woman: (to Scottish soldier) Tell me, Sargeant, is anything worn under the kilt?

Scottish Soldier: No, ma'am. It's all in perfect working order!

So I thought you might like to share in my researches in this fascinating study!

Loincloths might still be around (roll on global warming) but they have been found in burial sites on the bodies of men living over 7000 years ago. Who knows what sparked man to start covering his bits – it would hardly be warmth, after all. It would offer some level of protection from thistles I suppose, but not if a sabre toothed-tiger was coming at you at groin level.

Tutankhamen was buried with 145 loincloths. This seems either a lot, or not enough, depending on your point of view of how long the afterlife is going to be. Of course by this time, the loincloth was worn under a skirt. Still – roll on global warming.

The Ancient Greeks obviously didn't have to worry about sabre-toothed tigers, and consequently didn't wear any underwear at all. Good for them! Φοβάμαι τους Έλληνες όταν είναι πηγαίνοντας καταδρομέας!**

The Romans did, though – big sissies. Possibly because their empire stretched into chillier areas. They'd wear something called a subligaculum, which in modern terms means a pair of shorts or a loincloth and was worn under a toga or tunic.

Oh yes, I know - probably NOT an accurate picture of underwear but is anyone complaining I'm showing this picture from a recently restored version of Spartacus?

Pull on undergarments were invented around the 13th century, large baggy drawers called "braies" made from linen were worn by men under their clothes. This style of undergarment did not really change in design for 500 years, other than to be fashioned from better, finer fabrics and to have ornamentation.

They shrank considerable during the Renaissance as the familiar image of cod-piece and hose emerged. The hose themselves were an open garment – not like our tights or hose of today.

Tight on the legs and open at the front and back which could not be worn openly as the privities hung lose. As the doublet became shorter somthing else was needed! The braies shrank to show off the hose, and the codpiece was developed to protect the wearer's modesty.

Or at least at first.

Gradually the codpiece evolved, became padded, shaped to fit and as some clearly showed were frankly showing off- and obviously exaggerating. Some of the most "impressive"are those belonging to Henry 8th and shown at the Tower of London, where other Crown Jewels are protected too!!

What is interesting is that the fashion of today – that of showing off one's designer underwear, is not a new thing at all. The rich would commission the most exquisite undershirts,and underwear- fabulously expensive fabrics and meticulously embroidered. Why, they reasoned, am I paying for such incredible work that will never be seen? This led to the "slashing" fashions that we see in the Elizabethan period, where the overclothes had slits in- the better to show off the gorgeous clothes being worn beneath.

After these excesses calmed down, and waistcoat shirt and breeches took the place of doublet and hose, men returned to wearing braies or "strossers" – during the English Civil War the only difference between undergarments and overgarments were the weight of the wool they were made from.

**I fear the Greeks going commando

Next time - from 1700 to the mid 20th century.

Erastes writes gay historicals, and her first book for Carina is "Muffled Drum" (set during the Austro Prussian War) and will be out in July 2011. It's full of soldiers, horses, angsty love and many many buttons.