Today we’re talking to award-winning author Louise M. Gouge. Her latest release, Then Came Faith, is due out this fall with White Stone Books. Louise holds a master of liberal studies degree from Rollins College, where her thesis was Ahab’s Bride, which became book 1 of her Ahab’s Legacy Series. In addition to writing, she is an adjunct English professor at Valencia Community College in Orlando, Florida.
Louise, give us a brief overview of how and when you began to write and what led you to write historicals.I began writing in my early forties. My children were growing up, and I wanted to do something fun with my time. Over the years, it has become a true career, one that I love and enjoy. I write historical fiction because of my love of history. Since I was a small child, my favorite books were those from the 19th Century: Charlotte Bronte, Jane Austen, and Charles Dickens. I also love historical movies, but only those that accurately portray the past.
Why do you write?
Since my earliest years, I’ve had an active imagination. Some sort of story is always going on in my mind, just like a movie. If I didn’t write them down, I think I’d explode.
Tell us a bit about your books: How many do you have published? What eras have you focused on, and why? Do you write in other genres too?My first publishing credit was a short story entitled “The Burden” (Moody Magazine, February 1993). I’ve also written and published Christmas and Easter plays for church production. But I focus mainly on novels.
My sixth book, Then Came Faith, is due to be released in October 2006, published by White Stone Books. My first two books were a contemporary series published by Crossway Books in the 1990s. My next books were my historical Ahab’s Legacy trilogy published by RiverOak in 2004, 2005, and 2006.
I prefer the 19th Century, which includes more that one era: late Georgian, Regency, Victorian, Civil War, post-Civil War, Reconstruction, Gay Nineties, etc. I’m drawn to these eras for two reasons. First, as I said before, I love history. Things that happened long ago are the foundation of who we are today. Second, when writing accurately about the 1800s, I don’t have to explain why my main characters have high moral standards because that was the way things were back then. Most people believed in God, went to church, and waited until marriage for intimacy.
Of course, there were many bad things about those times, too, but those provide the conflicts for my stories. I’ve tackled such topics as slavery, spouse abuse, divorce, revenge, class struggle, self-righteousness, low self-esteem, and prejudice, all topics that are relevant today. In my stories, people may wear clothing that is different from today’s styles and may ride in carriages instead of cars and airplanes, but issues of the human heart remain the same. And the way that God can intervene in the midst of our pain never changes.
Are your books classified as historical romance or as historical fiction—and what is the difference?This is hard for me to answer. I’ve heard that if you can take the romance out of a novel and still have a strong, issue-based story of interest to women, it’s “women’s fiction.” In my case, that would be women’s historical fiction. If you can take out the issues and history and only have the romance left, it’s a romance. To me, that seems so limiting. I write about characters who need to make changes in their lives (issues), but I also write about people who fall in love (romance). They could not be compelling characters if they didn’t deal with the issues, and they could not be like the majority of people on the planet if they didn’t fall in love and get married. So when people ask me to classify my books, I’m at a loss. I just try to write entertaining stories with compelling characters who overcome internal and external obstacles to become better people.
Visit Louise's Web site at www.louisemgouge.com. And check back on Thursday, July 6, for the conclusion of our conversation. Tomorrow I’ll be talking about why history--and historical fiction--matter.
Posts
8 comments:
Thanks, Louise and Joan, for the interview.
"Most people believed in God, went to church, and waited until marriage for intimacy. Of course, there were many bad things about those times, too, but those provide the conflicts for my stories."
Were people really more spiritually connected back then? How do we know?
--I thought this might be a good thing to talk about here on this blog!
"Were people really more spiritually connected back then? How do we know?"
People were more outwardly proper back then and held a tighter rein on their appetites and emotions. They were more stoical and more influenced by societal standards. Christianity held more sway over the actions of the masses, whereas today we are more like they were in the days of the judges in Israel when "Everyone did what was right in their own eyes."
So imho, people weren't necessarily more spiritually connected, in that only God knows how many true believers there really were. But they were more spiritually influenced by the laws of God and society's expectations that those laws be upheld. I believe that's more why we were considered a Christian nation than the idea that everyone in the U.S. was truly Christian. The worldview was different - vastly different than it is today - and much more accepting of and adhering to the Christian belief system.
Great interview, Louise! And great job on the posts, Joan!
Cindy and Jill, great discussion point, and one we should certainly delve into in the blog. I think Jill's right about the expectation of society. There was a lot of peer pressure to at least appear to be living a "Christian" life on the surface, though I'm sure behind the scenes people were about the same then as they are now.
I also agree with Louise about the advantages of setting our stories in time periods when the outer society upheld Christian standards. Doing that allows us to include themes of faith in a credible way since that really was the orientation of the people of the day and a common topic of conversation.
"I’ve heard that if you can take the romance out of a novel and still have a strong, issue-based story of interest to women, it’s “women’s fiction.... If you can take out the issues and history and only have the romance left, it’s a romance."
I've never heard it explained this way. It's enlightening, if limiting (as you point out, Louise). I seem to be straddling the line somewhere between the two with my WIP. But then, it's been my unintentional pattern to find every genre line possible and put a foot firmly to both sides, so... I'm not a bit surprised!
"I write about characters who need to make changes in their lives (issues), but I also write about people who fall in love (romance). They could not be compelling characters if they didn’t deal with the issues, and they could not be like the majority of people on the planet if they didn’t fall in love and get married."
That's an eloquent description of the blending of the two. Thanks, Louise! It helps me to understand what it is I'm purposing to do in my own historical writing. Thanks for taking time to do the inteview.
Lori
Jill (and all)
"People were more outwardly proper back then and held a tighter rein on their appetites and emotions."
This is a fascinating topic, one I'm currently researching in regards to 18th C. morality, especially concerning the plantation south, with its race and gender related issues.
A woman's good reputation was a fragile thing, and easily lost, even if she was an innocent victim of rumor. But that good reputation was crucial for a woman when it came down to her quality of life, in ways we don't experience today. The restrictions of propriety not only stemmed from inward Christian beliefs, but when these were absent, there was still the necessity to survive in a world where women were considered property, and to become damaged goods was a social, marital, and sometimes physical, devastation.
It was in a woman's best interest to guard her purity and conduct herself above reproach. Yet there were always exceptions, those who broke society's rules and got away with it. People were as diverse then as they are now, and much depended on what part of the country one lived in. An isolated frontier cabin was a long way from the established and watchful east coast society.
As I said, it's a fascinating subject for me that I'm working to get a better handle on. *s* Hope others will share their thoughts.
Lori
Enjoyed the interview with Louise, nice job. I added a link to the site from mine.
Terry
www.terryburns.net
Terry, I'm delighted that you linked to us. Please join the discussion anytime. We need your insights from a Western POV!
Lori,
Well, I think I fall into that line-straddling category too. I'm a lot heavier on the history than most romances, but my stories have a pretty substantial romance going too. Of course, love and romance are such integral parts of life it's hard to separate one from the other.
You make excellent points about a woman's reputation and the necessity to survive. A woman's situation in this country today is drastically different from how it was in earlier eras--and really, not that long ago.
Post a Comment