Awards and Oscars and Observations, Oh My!

Today my brain is scattered -- and almost as chaotic and busy as the ballroom pictured here, which so crowds poor Mr. Darcy -- so my post here will be scattered and chaotic as well.

AWARDS

Don't forget to vote in All About Romance's 2005 Reader Poll! Just go to:

www.allaboutromance.com/ballot2005.html

Ignore the list of books near the top -- those are THEIR favorites, not yours -- and vote your opinions!


OSCARS

This morning it was announced that the recent film of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE was nominated for four Oscars! Of course, the serious films got the nods for best picture, but P&P got nominations for costume design, art direction, original score, plus a best actress nomination for Keira Knightley! (Well deserved, in my opinion!)


OBSERVATIONS

My first novel (MY LADY GAMESTER) was released on November 1. Looking back, it’s been an interesting and educational three months for me.

So . . .

First, my thank-yous.

1) Thank you to the many members of my family, and my husband’s family, who bought my book.

2) A particular thank-you to my mother, my uncle’s mother-in-law, and Todd’s parents and their spouses, for making the supreme sacrifice of actually reading it.

3) An extra-special thank-you to my mother-in-law, her husband, and my father-in-law’s wife, for sharing their thoughts on my book, and what they liked about it.

4) Thank you to my friends who took the time to buy and read my book.

5) An extra special thank you to the two members of my local RWA chapter who went the extra mile, and reviewed my book on Amazon. I am eternally grateful.

6) Thank you to pretty much everyone I’ve mentioned my book to, for not calling romances trash, or making snide or patronizing remarks about the genre, or my book.

Now, what I have learned...

1) Most of my relatives, and some of my friends, will never read my book. They may read other books, or they may not, but they won’t read mine. They would probably be more interested in hearing about my attempts at cooking, my cat’s bad habits, the last movie I saw, or the details of my mortgage, than hearing about the book that took me years (and blood, toil, tears, and sweat) to write. That’s life.

2) The most common question I will get on my book is “How is it selling?” (I guess this is a question my relatives can ask without having read my book.)

3) Some of my friends who read my book will decide the most useful thing they can do is to list for me any errors they believe they have found in it. I confess I do not know why they think this is a good idea.

4) Even if the theme of my satiric holiday letter is the fact that almost no one has reviewed my book on Amazon, no one I send the letter to will be persuaded by it to review my book on Amazon. I hereby resolve to learn to be happy with my two good reviews, and stop nagging my relatives (who haven’t read my book anyway.)

So . . . does anyone else have any similar observations to share?? All opinions (and venting of your own) very welcome! (You can also comment on the AAR poll or the Oscar nominations!)

Cara
Cara King, www.caraking.com
MY LADY GAMESTER -- out now from Signet Regency!!!!

Melancholia

"But when the melancholy fit shall fall
Sudden from heaven like a weeping cloud,
That fosters the droop-headed flowers all,
And hides the green hill in an April shroud"
--Keats


Every year, around this time, I get the winter blahs. I can't stand the cold and gray skies, and it's hard to concentrate on reading/writing/doing chores (not really much different from any other time when it comes to those chores, I guess!). I just like to crawl under the electric blanket and watch movies. Preferably costume epics and adaptations, like the ones Megan wrote about a few days ago. But this general mopiness made me curious about people in the Regency. Did they ever get tired of the gray skies, the drizzle? Ever think the sun will never come out again?

So, I came across a couple of articles online dealing with "melancholy" in the eighteenth century. It seems there were two types of melancholy--"natural" and "unnatural" (no mention of SAD!). "Natural" was considered to be brought on primarily by a black bile that could be dried up over time. This could be the result of certain foods, such as strong wines (and here I thought wine was the remedy!), and were accompanied by lifestyles that could nourish the condition, such as frequent intoxication and over-indulgence. One treatment, which sounds pretty nice and kind of spa-like to me, was a routine to bring balance between sleep, play, exercise, company, sex, and intellectual pursuits, as well as an attendant to keep the patient from being sad. It was then thought that the black bile could then dissipate, and the patient would return to normal.

The "unnatural" kind, though, was tougher. Maybe even the result of corruption from demons and spirits! (Though this is probably earlier than Regency--I read a great deal about it in Samule Johnson's work). In this case, the sadness could descend toward manic episodes, fits of rage, and "eventual absolute madness." So--demons, or maybe living somewhere like Alaska.

Johnson defined hypochndria as a condition that produces melancholy, or an intense fear that led to symptoms of melancholy. One case he documented was a women who thought she had a snake living in her intestines. The doctors showed her a snake they claimed came from said intestines, and she was cured. This sounds more like general craziness than melancholy, though!

All this made me try to remember a romance where characters suffered from depression, or melancholy, or any kind of persistent sadness, and I came up mostly blank. Most romance characters are a pretty perky lot, in general. Has anyone here read a book like that? Any thoughts on what such a story could be like?

And now that I've brought everyone down, I'll sign off! I'm sure I have some movies waiting to be viewed....


p.s. Another very interesting book on this subject is Duncan Salkeld's "Madness and Drama in the Age of Shakespeare"

Interview with Pam Rosenthal

We're very pleased to welcome as our first guest Pam Rosenthal, writer of historical erotic romance and erotica, and a frequent visitor to this blog.

"Where are the really sexy, well-written novels for grown-up, sophisticated readers? At long last, I found one..." The Contra Costa Times on Almost a Gentleman
"...a love story about people who love books nearly as much as each other." Romantic Times BOOKClub on The Bookseller's Daughter
"...will send genteel readers into seizures... adventurous, different, and unconventional."Mrs. Giggles on A House East of Regent Street in Strangers in the Night

Welcome to the Riskies, Pam. In one of your comments on Risky Regencies, you said you came to write romance by an indirect route. What was that, and what appealed to you about the genre?
I came to romance from erotica -- which wasn’t so well trodden a path a few years ago as it is now. I’m the author of one of the books Janet recommended as a year-end favorite. Some of you might remember the one with the bare-assed cover -- CARRIE’S STORY, by Molly Weatherfield (and thanks, Janet, for bringing down the tone so eloquently).
It’s a very explicit and (imo) rather witty book -- Carrie yacks non-stop in a mordant intellectual chicklit voice -- which, given all the heavy doings she’s subjected to, is my way of making the SM subgenre poke fun at itself, while also poking fun at myself for my fascination with the SM subgenre. And which must have worked (I’m proud to say that CARRIE’S STORY is in its ninth printing and sometimes called a "classic"), leaving me to wonder how in the world I’d brought my mild-mannered self to such a pass.
So I started reading about the history of erotic writing. And discovered THE FORBIDDEN BEST SELLERS OF PRE-REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE, by the historian Robert Darnton. From which I learned that smut and enlightenment philosophy were both smuggled into France and sold surreptitiously by booksellers during the years before the revolution. The smut/enlightenment combo seemed right up my alley, my husband’s a bookseller, and the smuggling angle led me to believe there was a historical romance in there. And there was -- THE BOOKSELLER’S DAUGHTER.

As for what appealed to me about the romance genre -- this was sort of weird, because I hadn’t read any romance in a long time. But I knew how popular it was and I was especially curious about the bodice-ripper covers I’d been seeing during the preceding years. And somehow I was sure (correctly, as it turns out) that since I’d grown up in the Technicolor fifties surrounded by exuberant HEA mythology, my fantasies were quite romance-inflected already.




How did you get interested in the Regency period and what do you like best about it?
I was so naïve a first-time romance writer that I didn’t know how unpopular a venue France is (or was, with romance readers -- I think they’ve lightened up now). But I’d had such a good time writing THE BOOKSELLER’S DAUGHTER that I didn’t want to stop writing romance -- and if Regency England was the historical venue of choice, so be it and I was happy to reacquaint myself with Jane Austen.
I don’t have any smart takes on the period -- yeah, it’s the clothes for me too. The men’s coats, the tight pants, the boots. Georgian architecture. Adam rooms. Wedgwood. I think of all that poise and balance as coiled-up energy waiting to burst forth as the industrial revolution and the nineteenth century British Empire.
I would say I’m attracted to the wit of the period, but I suspect that all periods have their great wits (hey, the soggy, earnest Victorians had Thackeray and Lewis Carroll). I think it’s interesting, though, how genre writers -- historical and contemporary -- seem to need some modicum of wit, to provide concision, momentum, a way of being modest, tough, reliable good authorial company.
And then there are ways in which I don’t like the Regency at all, for its snobbery and political reaction. Which is also a good reason to write about a period -- a love-hate relationship can be an extremely productive and interesting one.

Tell us about your next book [Signet Eclipse, Sept. 2006].
It’s another sexy Regency-set historical. But this is the first of my historical books built around an actual event rather than made-up murder and mayhem. The Pentrich Revolution of 1817 was a genuine popular uprising -- well, it was genuine and it wasn’t, because it was fomented in large part by an agent provocateur, in the pay of the Home Office.
My heroine and hero, Mary and Kit, run athwart of the provocateur plot on the way to solving their own problems. They’re already married, though they were legally separated before Kit marched off to fight Napoleon -- but needless to say they’re still deeply, hotly, and most confusedly and contentiously in love. The erotica is quite explicit, but I think what I most enjoyed doing was the contentiousness, the way they argue at the slightest provocation, jostle for physical space and interrupt each other in mid-sentence because they know each other’s speech rhythms so well. There’s something delightfully provocative (half dance, half pugilism) about watching two people who know and love each other go for the jugular.
But until it’s listed in the publisher’s catalog, I’d better not announce the title because they could always change it.

Which of your books is your favorite?
Right now the current one, because learning the history was a challenge and an entertainment. My husband and I visited the region where it happened and also spent a day in the National Archives at Kew, reading the Home Office papers -- correspondence between magistrates, spies, the provocateur, and Lord Sidmouth, the HO secretary. These were microfiches of the originals, in very scrawled handwriting -- the immediacy of the past gave us goose bumps.
But I’d also like to give a nod to SAFE WORD, the Molly Weatherfield sequel to CARRIE’S STORY. May I quote to you what an Amazon reviewer said about it? "I loved this book. Not just as porn, but as a real book . . . it made me rethink all those [SM] myths, and the impact that their beauty and their despair had on my own self-view. I don't know how I can say more about a book than that."
And (since I did a lot of rethinking in order to write that book) I don’t know how an author could want more from a reader’s response.

What do you like to read?
Mostly fiction, literary and not-so-literary both. Within that mixed bag, I think I’ve been looking for a certain kind of story since I got my first library card. The librarian of our local branch asked if I liked "family stories," and I, being six or seven at the time, nodded dumbly, never having considered that there was any other kind of story.
And in fact I do like stories that situate people in a nexus of relationships foregrounding the familial ones. I worked hard to create an extensive familial world for Mary and Kit, who first came to consciousness of each other as children of rival Derbyshire landowners. So it’s not just a political world they learn to situate themselves within -- it’s the continuing presence of their pasts and their families.
Books that I loved for this reason last year were all (coincidentally, I think) written by way-smart Englishwomen: ON BEAUTY by Zadie Smith, WIVES AND DAUGHTERS by Mrs. Gaskell, and DEDICATION by Janet Mullany. Runners-up (also by Englishwomen as it happens) were by new-to-me authors Penelope Fitzgerald and Mary Stewart -- and the latest HARRY POTTER was pretty nifty too. I also was happy finally to read way-smart Englishman Nick Hornby: I loved A LONG WAY DOWN and his essay/book chat collection, THE POLYSYLLABIC SPREE. The American wild card in the deck was Truman Capote’s gorgeous, distressing IN COLD BLOOD.

How do you do your research?
Well the unvarnished truth is that my husband Michael is doing increasingly more of it, since he jumped in when I needed him for this last book, to shed some light onto the darkness of British post-Waterloo domestic espionage. He’s been a bookseller all his life; he’s got a wide knowledge of what’s in print and a sharp professional instinct for what people will enjoy and what they need to know. So when I needed to understand how the British Home Office was spying on Britain’s parliamentary reform clubs (or for that matter, what the parliamentary reform clubs actually were), he found the resources for me and traced the references to the boxes of Home Office microfiche at the National Archives . . . I’m very grateful. Of course, we’re only starting to learn how to work together, but this last research trip to England -- hiking around Derbyshire, finding the site of the Pentrich uprising, and reading those amazing documents -- was our most fun vacation ever.
Oh, and he also writes my synopses -- or takes my drafts and turns them into readable synopses (he wrote up his hints for synopsis-writing and I’m going to post them on my web site). I do write the novels, though. Honest.

What are you working on now?
I’m still finishing up the current one. My ideas for the next are still pretty embryonic.


Do you feel that your erotica is related to your romance writing? How?
I have the same attitude about physical sexuality in both cases. Which is that it’s less about body parts and more about how lovers see and know and understand themselves and each other in time and space. Which isn’t to say that I don’t write very explicitly about body parts or voyeurism or fetishism or bondage or any of those good things. But I do try to think how this particular pair of lovers in this particular situation will eroticize or fetishize or play domination games or get creative in bed.
The difference is that in the erotica, love wasn’t a given. I did have a sort-of hero and heroine, but they were each involved in a series of very baroque SM situations, and it wasn’t a given that they’d be together by the end of the two-part series -- in fact I truly wasn’t sure how it would end until I was well into the second book. Of course I learned that when you put a lot of gorgeous people into a lot of hot situations some of them will, shall we say, conceive tendres for each other. Love made its way into those books whenever and however it wanted to -- in certain cases I found myself most pleasantly surprised (and this was one of the things that made me think I could write a romance). The CARRIE books are about love, as it happens, even if obliquely.
And I think I brought something of that to the romances. A curiosity about voyeuristic and fetishistic psychology developed my skills with point of view. I like to keep it fluid and yes, sometimes oblique. I like to have minor characters take on the burden of narrative from time to time, I like to flash onto their stories, and I’m trying to learn how to make my main and subplots interact a little more. I find it sexier and more democratic that way.

In your romance books, were you aware that you were taking risks? In retrospect, what can you see that was risky about them?
Aside from the risk of saying on these august pages that there are ways I quite dislike the Regency period? Or of exposing my most cherished and fraught sexual fantasies? Or the risk of seeming preachy, along the way to presenting an episode of popular rebellion?
Well sure. All risk all the time. I mean one spends so much time (and I’m slow) writing a book that says, in one way or another, I think this is hot or I think this is interesting. And then a reader comes along and says you think what? Making one feel like a total idiot. But isn’t the risk the point of the thing? I hate roller coasters, but I seem to like putting myself through something very similar when I write a book.

Well, I Really Had a Ball Last Night....

Critique night for me was last night, and it was at my house,
and in my case that entails quite a bit of preparation since I am not easily made “company ready.” So I spent a few hours picking up,
rushing around with this and that, and running various noisy machines, all of which had my four cats either staring at me in astonishment or running in the opposite direction. It all came together though, and we
got together, ate (an important component of our critiques), read our chapters and discussed. We always have a very good time, too—and it was late before we were finished, again usual for us, which is why we meet on Friday nights.

Well, today I am suffering from the aftereffects! I am sore, tired, and ready to write. It just happens to be a tiny bit later than usual…Ahem.

I thought I’d put up a few shots of some pictures I have on my hard drive from the Beau Monde conference I attended in 2003.

Here is Gail Eastwood, Elena Green, and I at the evening event. I fail to remember the theme, but we attend in appropriate costume and have various activities—lessons in the card games of the period, lessons in dance (conducted by Gail Eastwood, who is knowledgeable not only of Regency dance, but of other periods as well) and the like.

All of these photos were taken in a closed room under artificial lighting, so it is hard to get the colors right. I did some photo editing to try to make the best of it.

Here are some shots of the dancing…and gorgeous costumes!

And some of my favorite costumes…

The flowered gown below is our Cara. The “gentleman” is Regina Scott, whose “Reginald” steals the evening.

Below is a lady, whose name I unfortunately do not have, who told me that her gown (orange and gold) is made from sari material. I tried to get a better shot of her gown, but my batteries died. :(

I truly love this gown. I believe she said it was made by a seamstress in India—but my memory could be failing me. It doesn't show well in this small picture, but it is a figured material--there are tiny blue flowers all over it.

Another lovely white gown.

Please, everyone—pitch in and supply names of anyone I could not, or if I have wrongly identified anyone…thanks so much!

PS--I am wearing my Golden Heart from the previous year, and if I remember correctly, this is the year that Cara won the Beau Monde Royal Ascot contest and Ammanda won the Bookseller's Best. Am I right?!

Laurie
LORD RYBURN’S APPRENTICE
Signet, January, 2006

Adaptation.

There's a new film coming out called Tristam Shandy: A Cock And Bull Story, which "attempts to shoot the adaptation of Laurence Sterne's essentially unfilmable novel, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman." Tristam Shandy, if you've never read it, is a brilliant, frustrating, hysterical deconstructed novel written in the eighteenth century. It is a totally modern novel, despite being written almost 300 years ago, and Sterne's ability to play with language and go off on tangents is comparable to twentieth-century masters such as Joyce and Pynchon.

But I'm not hear to blab about the Modern Novel, although at a more erudite time, I probably would be. As I was thinking about the Tristam Shandy movie, and how funny--and oddly true to the book's spirit--it sounded, I was thinking about other books I read that were "classic" works of literature, and how the movies (with the clear exception of Jane Austen) just don't evoke the same feel. And let me say there's nothing I like more than a good--or bad--historical movie. Now, here's where you can start wracking your brain to find more exceptions on the good side of the equation (Oh, the 1973 Three Musketeers springs to mind, actually--but Dumas was a better storyteller than a writer). Thackeray's Vanity Fair toned down the single-minded ruthlessness of Becky Sharpe; Thackeray's Barry Lyndon was beautiful, but s-l-o-o-w. Henry Fielding's Tom Jones did a pretty good job, but lost some of the nuanced jibes that made the book's narrative so biting (and Fielding was a darn good storyteller, too).
There have been a few versions of Wuthering Heights, all of which spotlight the oftentimes ridiculous melodrama of Emily Bronte's prose, but miss the poignant heartbreak and longing of your first crush/obsession. Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels totally missed the scathing satire. There's also Jane Eyre, A Christmas Carol, the many incarnations of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Laclos' Dangerous Liaisons (and its wimpy younger brother, Valmont)


(Caveat: Of course there are the A&E/BBC/Other Initialed creations, but they have more than two or three hours to get the job done, so they can stick to the book better.)

Of books that haven't yet been made into films, I'd suggest Francois Rabelais' Gargantua And Pantagruel, a brilliant, bawdy, grotesque, sophmoric, clever book. I also think it'd be fun to read some of those 'horrid novels' Regency heroines (and sometimes heroes) are always reading (and sometimes writing) and see if any of those would make fun films.

So here's where the class participation comes in: What movies have done a good job at bringing a classic novel to life? And what classic books would you like to see made into movies that haven't been already?

Thanks for recommending some more for my film queue,

Megan
www.meganframpton.com

Happy birthday, Mozart

The big day--his 250th--is actually tomorrow, but I volunteered, although posting so late in the day it's already 27th in Vienna.

Well, what can you say about Mozart that hasn't been said, much better? Here's Tim Page in last Sunday's Washington Post:

It is now 250 years since Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born in Salzburg, Austria -- and some 245 years since this prodigy among prodigies fashioned his first little pieces for keyboard under the helpful eye of his father, Leopold. The world has changed radically since 1756 but Mozart remains a constant -- we continue to regard the mixture of clarity, grace and formal balance in his music with undiminished awe. He seems to have been incapable of vulgarity or overstatement: In his mature works, there is hardly a wasted gesture or a note out of place. And yet it all seems so effortless, so absolutely spontaneous.
Indeed, because Mozart's music is so flowing, direct and eloquent, many listeners think it must be easy to perform. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although almost any third-year piano student can read through the Mozart sonatas, it is a different matter entirely to play them well . Many other composers demand more in terms of muscle, pyrotechnics and flashy virtuosity, but there is an extraordinary transparency to Mozart's music, and any imbalance, no matter how slight, is glaringly obvious. As such, the interpretation of Mozart remains one of the supreme tests of any great musician.

Rather than rave about my favorite Mozart recordings/works (oh, okay. For the record, off the top of my head: Mitsuko Uchida playing the sonatas, Richard Goode and the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra playing the piano concertos, the Skittles Trio, the quintets, the Dissonance quartet, the piano quartets, the Requiem, the wind serenades, the Prague Symphony [38]--you know it's time to stop when you're in double parentheses)--I thought I'd actually try and relate this to the regency period. And this is actually a follow on from my last post on pianos--how they were used to bring orchestral music into the home.

I knew this happened later on in the century, with Liszt's famous transcriptions of Wagner, for instance, but I was amazed to find how much material dated from our period, published in London, based on Mozart's operas. I looked up music inspired by Don Giovanni, my favorite Mozart opera (I think, or is it The Magic Flute?) and found a website at the University of Southampton, England devoted to research on Mozart performances during the nineteenth century. And, not surprisingly, the majority of pieces are for piano, or piano four-hands, with flute and piano and flute duets coming in next. I have no idea who most of the arrangers were, and some were anonymous--Clementi (a music publisher as well as a composer and piano builder) was the only one I recognized. There were lots of arrangements of the overture (including one for harp and piano) and the big tunes, like the minuet from the final act, as you'd expect. C. von Boigelet, whoever he was, managed to concoct twelve gavottes from the opera. In 1809, The Royal Musical Magazine published an arrangement of Batti, batti (surely one of the most un-PC arias ever written) for piano four-hands.

And in our own time there's the movie Amadeus, a very fictional account of the rivalry between Mozart and Salieri, but eminently watchable.

Any other Mozart faves or facts you'd like to share?

What's Haute, What's Not, Part II

When I was putting together last week's post on best and worst Regency dress fashions, I also ran across many...um...inspiring images of headgear. As with the dresses, some were gorgeous and flattering (just what we like to see on a proper Regency heroine) and some were downright ridiculous (let's save them for comic villainesses, please!)

Some of my favorites:

Best #1 (upper left): 1810, from Ackermann's. This style was called a "cottage hat". I think it's nice and simple and just the thing to go with the elegant dresses of the time. It also strikes me as a bit 1920's ish, but I'm no expert on that.

Best #2 (right): 1811, also from Ackermann’s. For me, this is the right way to use flowers. Not too many (even though it does look rather as if she has a bee in her bonnet!) and the asymmetry is cute.

Best #3 (left): A gypsy hat, popular for country wear throughout the early 19th century. Nice and casual and, in the days before SPF 45, good protection for that delicate skin. I also saw a portrait of a somewhat older woman wearing one of these, and it looked great on her, too.

Best #4 (right): Gilmore's portrait of Sarah Reeve Ladson, 1823. Turbans often look ridiculous to me, but this one struck me as kinda cool, exotic, maybe a bit Byronic. Not everyone could pull this off, but if you have this sort of sultry dark coloring, I think it works.

Now for the sublimely ridiculous...

Granted, some of these are caricatures of contemporary styles, but they give us an idea of the results of a trend gone wild!

Worst #1: "Lady Godina's Rout -- or -- Peeping-Tom spying out Pope-Joan. Vide Fashionable Modesty", a March 12th 1796 caricature by Gillray. OK, this one speaks volumes on its own. But I'll add that feathers do appear to have their use as a hiding-place. Also, perhaps, to balance out wide hips????

Worst #2 (right): French satire on the poke bonnet ("Invisible"); No. 16 in the series of engravings, "Le Suprême Bon Ton" from the second half of the 1810's. More proof that outrageous millinery has its uses. Any guesses as to what they're actually doing in there? But of course, these people are French. Need I say more?

Worst #3 (left): 1810 turban. I'm rather surprised she can stand upright under that thing. Looks like she's wearing a miniature beanbag chair on her head, and the feathers look like they came from an anemic rooster. If you're going to wear dead bird feathers on your head, at least invest in some good peacock or pheasant!

Worst #4: 1817, The Lady’s Magazine. Everything I've heard about carriages of the time indicates they were rather small. Did the lady wearing this have to crawl in on hands and knees? Just think about what she might have exposed in doing so! OTOH maybe this is a style adopted by petite women in a vain attempt to look taller. You're not fooling anyone, dears, just embrace who you really are!

Worst #5: 1818, from La Belle Assemblée. These bonnets trimmed with a profusion of flowers and/or fruit make me wonder. Imagine you're wearing the latter out for a drive with a rakish gentleman, and then unexpected weather drives you to seek shelter in some secluded cottage or barn (of course that never happens in novels!). Perhaps you could disassemble and eat it.

Actually, I have to admit this last one is kinda fun, the sort of thing that would be a blast to wear to a costume party, for laughs. I think it would be fun to wear a turban sometime, too, though most of them seem a bit . . . dowagerish. For now, I'd rather see myself as a stylish matron.

So, Riskies and dear guests, which hats do you like, or think you would most enjoy wearing?

Elena
LADY DEARING'S MASQUERADE, RT Reviewers' Choice Award nominee
www.elenagreene.com

Jane Austen Evening

On Saturday, I went to the annual JANE AUSTEN EVENING, which is sponsored by the Lively Arts History Association. (More info about them at http://lahacal.org/)

First was a lovely tea, followed by a performance by Herr Beethoven. Then supper, and then several hours of dancing to live period music. The dances were mostly country dances, ranging from easy (such as Child Grove) through intermediate and on to advanced (anything with a hey, apparently!) I was delighted to be able to dance several of the advanced dances this year. There were hundreds of people there, most in some sort of costume, and the whole thing was quite splendid.

Some, like me, were in simple handmade empire gowns...nothing fancy, but at least the right feeling. (That's me, grinning away! And please keep in mind that empire gowns add thirty pounds, easily!) :-) Some, like my husband, were in fake-it-and-make-it-look-vaguely-period costume. But many were in the most detailed, intricate, amazing costumes ever. (Yes, I mean real corsets and everything!) :-)

This is the third Jane Austen Evening I've attended, and each has been better than the last. I danced until my feet could take no more. And I danced three maggots -- Dick's Maggot, Jack's Maggot, and Mr. Beveridge's Maggot (easily the most famous, having featured in the BBC/A&E Pride and Prejudice.)

These photos are courtesy of my delightful friend Jean -- she's the one on the right in the final photo, in the red and gold gown. Jean and her handsome husband Jack are graceful and energetic dancers (beware Jack's energy when he takes his Trip to Paris!) who have been dancing for a long time.

There don't seem to be any English country dancing groups very near where I live (I'm iffy about driving twenty or thirty miles to one) but I can always hope! I danced with local groups when I lived in Santa Barbara and in Pittsburgh, and it's great exercise as well as educational social fun. (That's pretty much everything one could ever want rolled into one, if you add a little chocolate.)

All in all, I had a wonderful time (could you guess?) at the Jane Austen Evening, and can hardly wait until next year!

Cara
Cara King, www.caraking.com
MY LADY GAMESTER -- from Signet Regency, on sale now!!!!

Ask Lady Cordelia

Good evening! May I offer you some tea? Perhaps some seed cake? (I am always polite, you see, even when deeply perplexed). When I went to my slumber last night, it was 1810 and I was visiting my dear friends Lord and Lady Seaforth-Haigh-Smythe. I was most comfortably ensconced in their lovely Yellow Chamber (rumored to be haunted, by those inclined to romantic superstition), and when I awoke I found myself here. In the small (yet charming!) cottage of Lady Amanda, surrounded by almost as many pets as our own Duchess of York possesses and forced to sleep on something called a "sleeper sofa." There is also this magical contraption, the come-puter, and its instant post.

I am confused by many things in this new abode (tea in bags? Horrors!), but I am sure good manners and proper behavior will see me through. In my own time, I am rather well known for my knowledge of etiquette. I even pen my own pamphlet, "Ask Lady Cordelia," where many a bewildered soul faced with social conundrums has benefited from my advice. Perhaps I can be of assistance to some of you?

As I bide my time until I can return home, I am quite relieved to see that a house party has recently (and properly) concluded, and that these, er, "Riskies" at least possess some knowledge of proper attire and gentle pursuits such as music.

Farewell for now!

Lady Cordelia

Interview with Amanda McCabe, author of A TANGLED WEB!

Amanda McCabe has written 11 books and a novella for Signet Regency. She's been a finalist for the RITA, RT's Reviewer's Choice Award, the Daphne DuMaurier Award, Holt Medallion, and National Reader's Choice Award. When not reading or writing romance, she loves doing needlework, taking dance lessons in ballet and flamenco, and digging through antique stores in search of new treasures. She lives in Oklahoma with two cats and a Pug dog. Learn more at ammandamccabe.tripod.com

Praise for A TANGLED WEB!
"McCabe does a terrific job with this simple story of love, rank and a bit of deceit in, quite possibly, the last of our traditional Regencies. " Romantic Times, 4 1/2 Stars!

The Interview

Q. How did you think of writing this particular book? Did it start with a character, a setting, or some other element?

It actually started with the PBS show "Regency House Party"! I loved the interaction of the various "characters", and what happens when you throw different types of people into close proximity for an extended period of time. So, A TANGLED WEB is sort of "Regency House Party" crossed with "Persuasion."

Q. How long did it take? Was this an easy or difficult book to write?

It took about three weeks. And I will NEVER do a book so quickly again! The publisher needed the manuscript in a hurry to get it into production, so I worked much longer hours than I usually do on a book. The characters didn't help me at all, either. Some of them refused to follow my careful house party matchmaking, and kept switching partners on me!


Q. Tell me more about your characters. What or who inspired them?

There are four couples altogether. The main one, the hero and heroine, are my "Persuasion" couple. Diana and Tom were in love when they were young, but as she was an earl's daughter and he was a tenant's son, they were kept apart by her ambitious family. He went off to Canada to seek his fortune, and she married and was widowed. But they never forgot each other. One couple is quite villainous, and the other two are young people in love (the ones who could not decide who they really love!). We have Diana's shy younger sister, her beautiful and flamboyant best friend, the bookish duke's son, and the handsome n'er do well. Who will end up with whom??? And then there is their hostess, Diana's mischevious Aunt Mary, who is quite delighted by all the romantic turmoil she's caused. It was so much fun to work with all of them, even when they were being stubborn!

Q. Did you run across anything new and unusual while researching this book?

I had to research the history of Canada (or British North America) in this period, something I hadn't really looked at for any other project. Tom spent a great deal of time out in the wilderness and in small trading communities, where the amenities were rough. But his mother, who went to Canada with him (and now wants him to marry well, since he's rich!), lived in Toronto, or York, and it was quite a comfortable and civilized place. I learned a great deal that I didn't know before.

Q. What do you think is the greatest creative risk you've taken in this book? How do you feel about it?

Hmmm-this doesn't seem like an especially "risky" story, since I had to get it done in such a hurry! But my hero isn't a duke or earl, he has no title at all, and he made his own way in the world. I liked him so much, both for the fact that he built a fortune on his own wits and adventurous spirit, and for the fact that he loved Diana for so long and tried so hard to be "worthy" of her.

Q. Is there anything you wanted to include in the book that you (or your CPs or editor) felt was too controversial and left out?

Originally, in my mind, the villainous couple caused even more trouble, but in the end there just wasn't enough room to include all their machinations! But hopefully they get what they deserve in their future lives.

Q. What are you working on now?

A historical fiction story set in Florence in the 1470s. The research has been fascinting! I also have an idea for a new romance series, titled "Villains, inc." So, stay tuned!

What's Next?

Thanks to everyone for joining our Risky Regencies Blog Party last week! It was a lot of fun to get to know all of you.

(Of course, now I'm lying on the couch with a big bag of ice on my forehead and there are empty teapots and scone crumbs scattered everywhere.)

This week, the romance review website All About Romance ran Robin Uncapher's column on 2005's Buried Treasures (books, that is). Janet's and my books were mentioned as traditional Regencies that were Buried Treasures, which is cool. Here's what they said:

Traditional Regency
One could easily argue that any traditional Regency is a buried treasure, but we offer these two as buried treasures.

Dedication by Janet Mullany
Blythe Barnhill liked this unusual, "hot rated" traditional Regency about a 37-year-old woman and a 43-year-old hero who is a grandfather.
A Singular Lady by Megan Frampton
I liked this witty trad about an impoverished but very resourceful young woman who decides to marry for money and accidentally falls in love with an earl whom she mistakenly believes is poor. The chemistry between leads is excellent. The author is fond of literary references and readers who get a kick out of reading about very smart people will like this book. Megan Frampton is a former AAR reviewer.

Given that the traditional Regency has died a traditional death at traditional
publishers, it's great to know people are still reading them, and what's more, liking them. The column is run in conjunction with AAR's Annual Readers' Poll. Likely this will be the last year to vote for the best traditional Regency, so if you've read any you've enjoyed--the six Riskies', or someone else's--head on over and vote. And thanks for the kudos, AAR!

We talked about the demise of the trad when the news first became official, and I know some of the Riskies talked about our next projects. But what about you? What genres would you like to see more of? Which would you like to see less of? What trends do you like in romance? And, of course, what trends are you not so fond of?

I'll answer, too: I'd like to see more medievals and more hybrid genres (medieval Romantica? Western suspense ("someone's been killin' all the cowpokes!"). I'd like to see fewer paranormals, unless it's a hybrid (the straight vamp'n'wolf thing is getting tired, to me at least). I like the trend of writers taking more risks with their characters--Janet's is a perfect example, with a heroine who's experienced and likes it. Laurie talked a bit about the 'imperfect' heroine, and I like that trend a lot. It's more interesting to read about real people (and as we all know, real people ARE imperfect). The trends I don't like are . . . hm. Probably characters who jump from A to (Thinking About) Bed in a matter of moments; even the most sexually-focused people have other thoughts that rattle around their brains. That's a habitual complaint, however, so isn't exclusive to this year.

What are your thoughts?

Megan
www.meganframpton.com

She sat down when they laughed at the piano

How I'd love to see that sentence in a regency. Since music was such a major part of Jane Austen's life--and that of her heroines--I thought I'd blog about that today, as we recover from the rigors and excitement of our contest (congratulations, winners!). Some soothing piano music might help, too.

Jane Austen's music books--copied by hand--are at her house in Chawton, Hants, as is her piano (left), made in 1810 by the composer Clementi, who owned one of the major piano manufacturers in London. One of Clementi's rivals was the firm of John Broadwood & Sons, still in business, and serving as providers of pianos to royalty ever since George II's time. The gorgeous instrument above was made by Zumpt & Buntebant of London and taken by Johann Christian Bach (son of the great J.S.) when he and the young Mozart visited France in 1778.

Jane's favorites included Clementi, Haydn and lesser-known composers Pleyel, Eichner and Piccini. Here's a recollection from her niece Caroline:

Aunt Jane began her day with music – for which I conclude she had a natural taste; as she thus kept it up – ‘tho she had no one to teach; was never induced (as I have heard) to play in company; and none of her family cared much for it. I suppose that she might not trouble them, she chose her practising time before breakfast – when she could have the room to herself – She practised regularly every morning – She played very pretty tunes, I thought – and I liked to stand by her and listen to them; but the music (for I knew the books well in after years) would now be thought disgracefully easy – Much that she played from was manuscript, copied out by herself – and so neatly and correctly, that it was as easy to read as print.

Jane's piano is a square fortepiano--the term used for early pianos. The great technological breakthrough of the piano (or whatever you want to call it!) is that unlike its predecessor the harpsichord it offered dynamic control--hence it's name, Italian for loud-soft, and used a hammer action, not a plucking action, on the strings. Fortepianos were first produced in the mid-eighteenth century and were built entirely of wood (modern pianos are held together with a large steel band to hold in the formidable tension of the strings), and have a more delicate, subtle sound than modern pianos. To hear the instrument go to this recording of Mozart and Schubert on amazon, where you can listen to excerpts. The artist is Melvyn Tan, who performed the fortepiano music heard on the movie Persuasion.


Here are a couple more recordings available from the Jane Austen Museum in Bath. A Very Innocent Diversion features selections from Jane Austen's music collection while the other features music from Jane Austen's time performed in Bath.

Would music--daily piano practice-- feature in your Regency fantasy or nightmare? Or, like Mrs. Elton, would you gratefully become a talker (although not totally devoid of taste, of course) and not a practitioner once you succumbed to the rigors of married life? And as (Cara, I think?) said, it might be interesting to see how truly accomplished those young ladies were...hopefully none of us would be like Mary Bennett, plucked from the keyboard by her embarrassed papa. And do you think that if you were magically transported back to Regency times, you might miss being able to summon music at the push of a button, or do you think the comparative rarity of a live performance (a good one, that is) might heighten your appreciation?

Janet

What's Haute, What's Not

One of the reasons so many of us love the Regency is the elegance of the clothing: the simplicity, the reliance on truly beautiful lines and well-chosen details rather than fussiness and tight corseting. But among the many beautiful creations of the time there were also some fashion horrors, especially near the end of the period with the advent of Victorian excess.

So here's my take on the Best and Worst of Regency fashion.

Best #1: from a painting by Constance Mayer (left), 1801, possibly a self-portrait. This is everything I love about Regency style: simple, elegant with just a touch of decoration around the sleeves and a ribbon threaded through the hair. Forever chic.

Best #2: a dress for dancing, circa 1809 (right). With the same elegant lines plus simple gold embellishments, it's the perfect thing to wear to Almack's and attract the attention of an eligible lord. (No wonder the Republic of Pemberley chose to incorporate this image into its coat of arms.)

Best #3: Portrait of a lady by Henri François Mulard, ca. 1810 (left). She just looks so pretty, with her simple white dress, nice touches of blue in the sash and fichu, contrasting color in the coral jewelry and the shawl. And her hair is so pretty, too!

Best #4: Walking dress, La Belle Assemblée, 1813 (right). Pretty and white, again with nicely coordinated touches of blue and the gold of the straw bonnet. What a cute little sash at the back, and such dainty footwear. One never knows whom one might meet when out for a stroll, after all!

Best #5: Ingres, Mlle de Senonnes, 1815 (left). Those French women just know how to do it. Velvet in a passionate red, that naughty look-but-don't touch gauzy neckline, and the froth of lace. The perfect ensemble in which to seduce your rakish romance hero. Tres sexy!




And now for the worst...

Worst #1: A walking dress from around 1810 (right). Look at all those silly tassels, the overly vertical lines, the silly lacing over the breasts. No wonder the dog is barking at her. Hope he snaps off some of those extra tassels.



Worst #2: Bathing Place Evening Dress, 1810 (left). I don't even know where to begin on this one. What a hideous shape, and that short skirt length, and all those silly ruffles! Makes me think of those frilly things they used to put on lamb chops. Ugh! And this is supposed to be evening wear?


Worst #3: Evening dress, from Ackermann’s Repository, 1816 (right). Now we see a new fussiness in the rosettes, the patterns, the flounces. If you are at all short or plump, you will look like a wedding-cake in this!




Worst #4: Evening dress, 1818 (left). They put everything but the kitchen sink onto this dress: strands of pearls, the sleeves with spiral-wound ruffles of lace, all that padded satin down the front. And that turban! All proof there are always some people who are into conspicuous consumption.

Worst #5: Court dress, modeled by Queen Caroline. How hideous is this???!!! Whoever thought that an empire waist should be combined with a hoop skirt is guilty of the most heinous Fashion Crime of the Millennium.

Whew!

So what does everyone else think?

Which ensemble would you like to wear? Which one deserves the honor of Best Regency Style?

Which do you think is the least becoming?