Eye of the Beholder

A few days ago, I was having dinner with some friends who are also Janeites, and we talked about the Jane Austen movies. Specifically, the Pride and Prejudices--1995 and 2005. One of my male friends made the comment that the '95 Lizzy was obviously much prettier than Jane, thereby making the fact that everyone considered Jane the "famous local beauty" puzzling (an argument I've heard before). To modern eyes this is probably true--Jennifer Ehle is quite lovely, maybe more obviously so than Susannah Harker. But I do think Ms. Harker was a good choice for the part. She has very "classical" looks that would have appealed in the Regency period (she looks almost like a Grecian statue). Plus I thought she captured Jane's serenity and sweetness (and slight dimwitedness) well.

In the 2005 P&P, it is more obvious. Rosamund Pike is so angelically pretty that it's clear why she was so acclaimed in the neighborhood. Keira Knightley is also stunning (she was recently on the cover of Vogue twice within four months!), but in a more contemporary, angular way. It's easy to see why she would capture Darcy's fascination, but also why she was slightly overshadowed by her sister.

It's so fascinating how each period has its own concept of "beauty," and how and why those ideas change and evolve. I recently read a thesis that said "beautiful" equates with whatever is high maintenance. I.e., in the Renaissance, when food was scare and most people worked outdoors, "zaftig" and pale was In. Now, very slender and tan is in, when it costs money and time to join a gym and buy bronzer to combat our office-bred pallor and softness. Of course, there are always a few women who transcend whatever the fashion is and make their own style of beauty. And there are many (like myself) who will never be happy with their looks, and yet always will be searching the cosmetics counters for that "miracle in a jar."

Here are a few quotes I found concerning women of the Regency who were renowned, in one way or another, for their style:

Lord Byron on Lady Caroline Lamb (who had a very "modern", Keira Knightley-style beauty, being very slim and elfin): "The lady had scarcely any personal attractions to recommend her" and her figure "was too thin to be good" (from Benita Eisler's "Byron: Child of Passion, Fool of Fame"

A Swedish diplomat on Emma Hamilton (seen in the portrait above): "she was the fattest woman I've ever laid eyes on, but with the most beautiful head"
And Lord Fitzharris: she is "without exception the most coarse, ill-mannered, disagreeable woman I've ever met"
An Anonymous observer: "She is indeed a Whapper: and I think her manner very vulgar"
(from David Howarth's "Lord Nelson: The Immortal Memory")

Madame de Remusant on Josephine Bonaparte: "her limbs were supple and delicate, all her movements easy and elegant"
Another Anonymous: "young and charming face, surrounded by a profusion of light hair, with a pair of large dark-blue eyes, and exhibiting altogether the image of the most graceful of sylphs"
(from "Josephine: A Life of the Empress" by Carolly Erickson)
Napoleon about Josephine: "...full of graceful charm--a woman in the fullest meaning of the term" (from Evangeline Bruce's "Napoleon and Josephine: An Improbable Marriage")

Mary Tickell (Sheridan's sister-in-law) on Dora Jordan: "little she is and yet not insignificant in her figure, which, though short, has a certain roundness...which is very graceful"
Harriet Bessborough: "she is terribly Large, but her voice and acting still delightful"
And Leigh Hunt: "she was neither beautiful, nor handsome, nor even pretty, nor accomplished, nor a lady, yet was so pleasant, cordial, so natural...had such a shapely leg withal..that she appeared something superior to all those requirements of acceptability"

And Lady Spencer, her mother, on Georgiana Duchess of Devonshire, one of the most famous beauties of her day: "Without being very handsome or having a single good feature in her face, she is one of the most showy girls I ever saw" (thanks, Mom)
Horace Walpole: "without being a beauty; but her youth, figure, flowing good nature, sense and lively modesty make her a phenomenon."
(from Amada Foreman's "Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire")

My latest read, which I've about halfway done with, is Diana Gabaldon's Lord John And The Private Matter, which takes place in mid-eighteenth-century London. I've only read one other Gabaldon--Outlander--and Lord John definitely does some fairly awful things in that book. But Gabaldon makes Lord John more than just a two-dimensional villain, and that, for me, is totally delicious.

See, I like 'em bad; to my mind, there's nothing more compelling than someone who seems irredeemable being redeemed by love. One of the best examples of that is
Anne Stuart's Black Ice; her hero is really, really bad, but you end up believing in him because Stuart writes him so well.

I was watching Pretty In Pink last night (such a guilty pleasure it's almost come back around the other way and is okay now), thinking how I've always liked the James Spader character more than the Andrew McCarthy character. Sure, he's a snobby a--hole, but he's hurting. I also have to admit having sympathy for the Joaquin Phoenix emperor in Gladiator.

Maybe I am irredeemable.

The act of redemption is very hard for an author to pull off; we can all cite many cases where the lukewarm villain in one book is the hero of another. Even in the first instance, the reader can tell the villain isn't that bad. What takes talent is taking someone truly bad and making their redemption believable. In Regencies, Mary Jo Putney has done it, as has Mary Balogh.

Fiona Apple's song "Criminal" does a great job of getting inside the mindset of the villain maybe to turn hero. The lyrics are below, with few questions for you to answer (if you'd like) following.

Fiona Apple--"Criminal:"

I’ve been a bad bad girl,
I’ve been careless with a delicate man.
And it’s a sad sad world,
When a girl can break a boy
Just because she can.

Don’t you tell me to deny it,
I’ve done wrong and I want to
Suffer for my sins.
I’ve come to you ’cause I need
Guidance to be true
And I just don’t know where I can begin.

What I need is a good defense
’cause I’m feelin’ like a criminal.
And I need to be redeemed
To the one I sinned against
Because he was all I ever knew of love.

Heaven help me for the way I am.
Save me from these evil deeds.
Before I get them done.
I know tomorrow brings the consequence
At hand.
But I keep livin’ this day like
The next will never come.

Oh, help me, but don’t tell me
To deny it.
I’ve got to cleanse myself.
Of all these lies till I’m good
Enough for him.
I’ve got a lot to lose and i’m
Bettin’ high
So I’m beggin’ you before it ends
Just tell me where to begin.
What I need is a good defense
’cause I’m feelin’ like a criminal.
And I need to be redeemed
To the one I sinned against
Because he was all I ever knew of love.

Let me know the way
Before there’s hell to pay.
Give me room to lay the law and let me go.

I’ve got to make a play
To make my lover stay
So, what would an angel say?
’cause the devil wants to know.

What I need is a good defense
’cause I’m feelin’ like a criminal.
And I need to be redeemed
To the one I sinned against
Because he was all I ever knew of love.

What I need is a good defense
’cause I’m feelin’ like a criminal.
And I need to be redeemed
To the one I sinned against
Because he was all I ever knew of love.

So--do you like bad folks turned good? Which books are the best examples of the villain made hero?

Thanks for reading--

Megan

www.meganframpton.com

Secondary characters

Where would we be without them? Those lovable, annoying, fascinating second-tier characters that pop in and out of the main action, as onlookers, catalysts, or just sheer entertainment. For the writer they have the annoying habit of grabbing the limelight far too often, occasionally getting extremely uppity and demanding a book of their very own.

One of my favorite secondary characters is Miss Bates from Emma, who was so brilliantly portrayed in the movie version by Sophie Thompson (younger sister of Emma), who seems to specialize in annoying characters--her screen credits also include the role of Mary Musgrove in the 1995 Persuasion. Poor Miss Bates, destined for a life of genteel povery and the neverending patronage of Mr. Knightley and his lovely new bride. Have you ever wondered why Miss Bates never married?--other than the fact that her interminable chatter may have frightened suitors off; or is her verbal overflow a defense? She was a vicar's daughter, after all, and we know there were two eligible men, Mr. Knightley and Mr. Weston in the neighborhood. I think there's a mystery in Miss Bates' past. The scary thing, too, is that Mr. Knightley, in his late thirties, is considered a catch, whereas Miss Bates, who may be younger, has catapulted into middle age and hopeless spinsterhood. (Note to self: save topic of aging for another post.)


Then there's Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins lite, played so sympathetically you almost liked him, portrayed by Tom Hollander in the 2005 Pride and Prejudice. Or David Bamber's superlatively greasy Mr. Collins in the A&E P&P. I so identified David Bamber with his role that every time he appeared in Rome as Cicero I hoped he'd dance again...

Who are your favorite secondary characters? Who deserves their own book? Do tell!

Puikybe ir prietarai

Don’t worry, this is still Risky Regencies and you have not been transported to some strange country.

Or only a bit strange—they have, at least, heard of Jane Austen. They even quite cleverly translated the title to keep the alliteration. This is Pride and Prejudice, a copy my mother brought back from her twice-annual trip to Lithuania.

Both my parents emigrated from Lithuania as children. Though I was born in the U.S., my first language was Lithuanian. In fact, I went to kindergarten knowing very little English. Perhaps not the smoothest way to integrate a child into a “new” country, but somehow I managed. I know that growing up bilingual has made other languages (perhaps even computer languages) easier. Still, I sometimes wonder if I can blame my occasional awkwardness with word choices and phrasing on this early linguistic confusion. Or maybe not. Maybe I’m just the Queen of Awkward Sentences, doomed to seemingly eternal revisions. :)

Anyway, I find this book and its packaging quite interesting. Though the title is clever the cover art is many centuries off. One would think they could have found something more appropriate. At least it’s not Victorian!

I read the back blurb, and was surprised to see that they gave the entire plot in a nutshell, spoilers and all. If, that is, there is such a thing as a spoiler for a book that’s been around since 1813.

Overall, it makes me happy people all over the globe can enjoy Jane’s genius. I wonder how she would feel about seeing her works in so many translations? Have any of you run across any other interesting translations? What have your experiences been with foreign languages? How do they affect your reading and writing?

Elena, hoping someday there will be Lithuanian editions of her own works
www.elenagreene.com
LADY DEARING'S MASQUERADE, an RT Reviewers' Choice Award nominee

The Jane Austen Dating Game, pt. 2

Last week we tried to marry off poor Colonel Brandon, who clearly deserves a good wife. (If you missed that discussion, you can still take part if you click here.)

This week -- Elinor Dashwood!

(And for those of you who are wondering, yes -- I do have a little problem with Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility.") :-)

So. Elinor Dashwood. Who should she marry? Who will make her truly happy? YOU decide!

How about Colonel Brandon? He's intelligent, sensitive, and well bred. Plus, he has more money than Edward! Were Elinor and Brandon fated to fall in love? Was Jane Austen blind to their true destinies? (I will admit, the first time I ever read S&S, I thought Elinor and Colonel Brandon would get together. I felt they had a real connection! They certainly seemed to have better conversations than Elinor and Edward, or Marianne and anybody! Was Jane Austen mistaken? Or did she perhaps know the truth, but have to hide it in clues due to some secret cabal that would murder anyone who -- um, okay, wrong book.)


Does Elinor Dashwood secretly have a thing for that rascal Willoughby? The cad is certainly more manly than the easily-manipulated Edward. (And Emma Thompson fell for Greg Wise, which must mean something!) But would he just break her heart? And is he too young, too immature for her anyway? Or would she steady him, while he brought some spontaneity into her life? (Am I sounding like Oprah yet?)

As long as we're giving her young cads, how about the youngest and newest on the block? Blond Wickham here is certainly nice to look at. Would Elinor have a great time reforming him? Of course, he's very very young. But Elinor's only nineteen herself, right?

While we're on the subject of blonds, how about Sharpe? (I know, I know, bizarre choice. I just like the picture. Nice picture. Yummy Sharpe. Umm....what was I saying?) If Elinor could reform Willoughby, could she reform Sharpe? He's a different sort of womanizer...less calculated, more impulsive. Would the class thing keep them apart? (Okay, yes, he's a ridiculous suggestion, but he looks so nice in his uniform!)

How would Elinor and Captain Wentworth do together? She's good, I suspect, at supporting male egos -- and he's got one that needs to be supported. He's better off than Edward (but then, who isn't???), and has friendlier relatives. So if Anne Elliot weren't around, would Wentworth be Elinor's true love, and vice versa?

Or how about Mr. Darcy? Sure, he's perfect for Elizabeth Bennet, but if she didn't have him, how would he do for Elinor Dashwood? Would her stodginess and his stodginess breed until they were dull and insufferable? Or would her gentle ways and his good breeding create a peaceful, beautiful home? (And don't forget that money! I do want to give Elinor a lot of money. She deserves it.)

Wait, I already did Mr. Darcy, right? Well, I know some of you like Colin Firth (and some of you really like Colin Firth) and some of you like Matthew McFadyen (and some of you really like Matthew McFadyen) so I figured I'd put both pictures here to keep the fighting down to a minimum!

So, would anyone else do better for Elinor? Mr. Tilney? (Too flippant?) Edmund Bertram? (Too serious?) Edward Ferrars? (Too wimpy? Too poor?) Mr. Knightley?

Mr. Knightley! Oh, I can't pass up an excuse to put Mr. Knightley's picture up here. My Jeremy is so handsome! Besides, Mr. Knightley may be the perfect match for Elinor. Mature, well-bred, and very very rich. :-)

So -- who gets your vote? Who do you think Elinor Dashwood should marry?

Cara
Cara King -- www.caraking.com
MY LADY GAMESTER -- Holt Medallion Finalist!

Regency Heroes by Diane Gaston Perkins

Let’s face it. I’m in this business for the heroes.

What could be better than spending your days with some hunky gentleman in pantaloons, Hessians, and a coat by Weston, who says things like, “You’ve bewitched me, body and soul.”

Sigh!

The Regency gives us such wonderful heroes. Wealthy marquesses and dukes. disreputable Rakes (as opposed to my Reputable Rake, on sale in May, shameless self-promotion here), corinthians, gamblers, impoverished vicars, and my favorite--

The soldier.


I’m with Mrs. Bennett when, in Pride & Prejudice, she says, “I remember the time when I liked a red coat myself very well—and, indeed, so I do still at my heart.”

That’s me. Show me a man in his regimentals and I’ll show you a potential hero.

Take a look at these fellows:

Sigh!

Maybe I love military heroes because my father was an Army colonel. I grew up with that whole military mind-set of duty and honor and country. Woke up to reveille. Went to sleep hearing taps. Or maybe it was listening to all those Chivers audiotapes of the Sharpe series, hearing William Gaminara read, “Sharpe swore.”

Writing a soldier for a hero gives so much dramatic potential. The hero faced hardship, faced death, experienced scenes we would find horrific. He’s honed his body to be strong. When he returns to England from war, he must look on the society to which he returns in a whole new light. I think it makes for lots of interesting possibilities.

I have a brazillion books on the Napoleonic war. Three of my favorites are:

Waterloo: Day of Battle by David Armine Howarth. It tells the story of Waterloo from the soldiers point of view.

Redcoat: The British Soldier in the Age of Horse and Musket by Richard Holmes, This book covers everything about being a soldier during that time period.

Galloping at Everything: The British Cavalry in the Peninsular War and at Waterloo, 1808-15 by Ian Fletcher. This covers all the major operations engaging the cavalry and discusses some of the controversy around them.

I have another book that makes me sad: Intelligence Officer in the Peninsula, Julia Page, editor. These are the letters and diaries of Major the Hon. Edward Charles Cocks, a man who loved soldiering with a passion that makes the journals occasionally boring. It makes me sad because the war takes his life. Even Wellington grieves his loss.

I’d love to write a series of Napoleonic war love stories, sort of Bernard Cornwell-style but with a really satisfying romance. A lofty dream.

Okay, let’s face it. I just want to spend my days with some hunky officer in regimentals.

Diane

Okay. It's not Regency but it is Gerard Butler as Spartan King Leonides at the Battle of Thermopylae 480 BC. Hey, he's a soldier, too, right?

Favorite animals in literature

or, less high-falutingly, the aaaaw factor.
Isn't this the cutest thing you've ever seen? Definitely cuter than Jeremy Northam, smarter than Orlando Bloom, more adept at drilling its way into hazelnuts than Sean Bean and the rest... Muscardinus avenallarius aka the dormouse, aka the hazel dormouse, dory mouse, sleeping mouse, sleeper, seven sleeper, or chestle crumb. Shown at left in one of its typical pursuits, the dormouse spends about three quarters of its time asleep, including a hefty hibernation from fall to spring.

The dormouse is native to Europe and in England lives mainly in wooded areas and coppices in the south. Because of changing agricultural practices and the destruction of ancient hedgerows, the dormouse is now a protected species.

Lewis Carroll immortalized the dormouse in Alice in Wonderland at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, where the dormouse is subjected to various indignities (to keep it awake and either encourage or prevent it from speaking), including being stuffed into the teapot.

Byron (yes, this is the Regency tie-in) made this comment on life:
When one subtracts from life infancy (which is vegetation), sleep, eating and willing, buttoning and unbuttoning--how much remains of downright existence? The summer of a dormouse.

Inviting your favorite rodent stories and reminiscences, or comments on Shakespeare, St. George and dragons since I've just noticed the date and realized any of those would have been a more appropriate post!

Janet
winner of first annual BWAHA award, Series Historical for Dedication

Must-sees and Must-reads

Yesterday I read a movie blog entry by Jim Emerson (which can be found on Roger Ebert's review site) called "101 Movies You Must See Before You Die." Emerson says they are not necessarily the "best" movies, or even his favorites, but "the movies you just kind of figure everybody ought to have seen in order to have any sort of informed discussion about movies."

It was a very interesting (and very debatable!) list. I think I've seen less than half of them. Some of them are favorites of mine (Bringing Up Baby, The Seven Samurai, Wizard of Oz), some I haven't seen at all but always kinda mean to (The 400 Blows--which sounds oddly like something from Ellora's Cave--as well as Aguirre The Wrath of God, Battleship Potemkin, Nosferatu, etc), and some are pretty obvious (Godfather I and II, Persona, Rebel Without a Cause). Now, I enjoy movies very much, but since I haven't seen so many of these does this mean I should never attempt to discuss them? Does it mean I'm less "worthy" as a movie-goer than someone whose favorite movie is, say Ferris Bueller's Day Off (as it was with an ex-boyfriend of mine)? And what does it say about me that I am a sucker for these "countdown" lists???

Megan's post about To Kill a Mockingbird also reminded me of all this. One of my favorite books is War and Peace. For one thing, I'm a sucker for long, sad, navel-gazing Russian novels (I definitely DON'T want to know what that says about me!!!). For another, it shows "our" period from a different viewpoint and culture, which I love. But do I think this is a must-read for everyone, and anyone who hasn't read it is an incomplete person who should never discuss literature? Well--no. Otherwise, the fact that I have never been able to read Moby-Dick would disqualify me.

All this rambling is just meant to ask--what are your personal "must-see" movies, "must-read" books? How did they affect you, or change your life? I think I need to add to my "must-see before I die" list. :)

Look Sharpe!

I posted this press release on my own blog a few days ago, and thought it was newsworthy enough to post here, too (and there are questions for you to answer at the end):

SPEND A SHARPE, ACTION-PACKED SUMMER WITH BBC AMERICA

-Romantic war saga stars Sean Bean-

Every Saturday night this summer, BBC AMERICA takes viewers on a sweeping two-hour journey to a new land, a new battle, and a new set of potential love interests with the epic romantic war saga Sharpe. Created by novelist Bernard Cornwell and starring Sean Bean (North Country), Sharpe chronicles the victories and loves of the legendary fictional Napoleonic war hero, Richard Sharpe. BBC AMERICA is showing the complete fifteen-episode series from the first episode, Sharpe’s Rifles, through to the U.S. premiere BBC AMERICA co-production, Sharpe’s Challenge, shot in India. Sharpe’s Rifles premieres Saturday, May 27, 9:00 p.m. ET/10:00 p.m. PT.

Sharpe’s Rifles begins in 1809 when Sharpe is a scrappy Sergeant. After bravely saving the life of a distinguished Captain, he is quickly promoted to Lieutenant and charged with a company of men slated for a rescue mission in Portugal. Throughout June, BBC AMERICA features channel premieres Sharpe’s Eagle, Sharpe’s Company, Sharpe’s Enemy and Sharpe’s Honor. In July and August, BBC AMERICA features channel premieres, Sharpe’s Gold, Sharpe’s Battle and Sharpe’s Sword and the brand-new, never before seen U.S. premieres Sharpe’s Regiment, Sharpe’s Siege, Sharpe’s Mission, Sharpe’s Revenge, Sharpe’s Waterloo and Sharpe’s Justice.

September brings the U.S. premiere of BBC AMERICA co-production, Sharpe’s Challenge, shot entirely in India. The fate of an empire rests in one man’s hands in Sharpe’s Challenge. Two years after the battle of Waterloo, dispatches from India warn that a local Maharaja is threatening British interests. Wellington sends Sharpe to investigate on what turns out to be his most dangerous mission to date.

For up-to-the-minute information on BBC AMERICA, forthcoming U.S. premieres, art work and news from the channel, log on to www.press.bbcamerica.com.

Seeing this made me think of many, many questions. I love reading the Sharpe series (and have never seen the series, so I am way excited), not so much for its time period (Regency), but for the amazing way Bernard Cornwell has with a battle scene, and his ability to throw in some surprising twists even through the course of what appears to be a normal action-packed novel. His writing is so fluid, and so compelling, I learn history without even noticing it. I've read his books set in the Middle Ages also, and he has a Civil War series I've gotten a few books of, but haven't read yet.

So--have you read Cornwell? Do you like his writing? If you've read the Sharpe series, is Sean Bean a good Sharpe? What other series (historical or otherwise) would you like to see made into movies? Do you find that once a book has been translated to film that it limits the way you imagine the characters? What's the best book to film adaptation have you seen? And the worst?

Thanks for answering--

Megan
www.meganframpton.com

Links!

Please note our sidebar now contains all sorts of great links: Riskies' author websites and blogs, interviews, other writers' and readers' blogs, review sites and delicious Regency sites in which one can lose oneself and not wish to be found again.

Thanks to everyone who has given us links from their blogs and websites. We are delighted to finally return the favor!

Elena

P.S. Kathleen Bolton and Therese Walsh at Writer Unboxed have posted the article they co-wrote with Elena on "Lessons from the Lord of the Rings". Read it for lots of geeky analysis of what writers can learn from the choices made in adapting the trilogy for film, along with only a teensy bit of gushing over Sean, Viggo, Orlando, etc...

P.P.S. The image above is of part of a Georgian emerald paste parure at www.georgianjewelry.com. In case you have $8550 just lying around...

Congrats to Diane and Janet!

More great news for the Riskies!

THE MYSTERIOUS MISS M, by Diane Gaston (who also impersonates Diane Perkins on occasion) and DEDICATION, by Janet Mullany, are both finalists for Best Regency in the National Readers' Choice Award, a contest judged by readers in every state.

View the complete list of finalists at www.okrwa.com/NRCA.htm

Go Riskies!

The Jane Austen Dating Game, pt. 1

As some of you know, I've never thought that Marianne Dashwood of "Sense and Sensibility" deserved Colonel Brandon, or was a good match for him. Now, after years of complaining, I'm finally going to do something about it! (With your help, of course.)

We are going to find a new woman for Colonel Brandon! Who gets your vote?

How about Anne Elliot? She's smart, she's kind, and she isn't a teenager. She doesn't fall in love with cads. On the other hand, both she and Brandon are a bit brooding. Are they too much alike? Would their marriage be a depression made in heaven?

Jane Bennet is much more mature than Marianne, but just as blonde and pretty. And she doesn't fall in love with cads either. She might not be up to his intellectual weight, though. Would Brandon soon tire of Jane's sweet nothings? (Pretty much anything she says is a sweet nothing, after all.)

Elizabeth Bennet is smart, and she and Brandon could have invigorating discussions. Or is she too sharp for him? Does he fall in love with teenagers because he's secretly insecure? Elizabeth might not have the flattering tongue he needs... Or is he confident in himself, and man enough for our Lizzy?

The Fanny Dashwood in the dreadful movie of "Mansfield Park" (which doesn't deserve to be called a Jane Austen movie, but that rant's for another time) definitely deserved a better fellow than Edmund! He's a wimp, and falls in love with female cads! But is this Fanny too contaminated by Patricia Rozema's movie to truly satisfy Brandon? How about the Fanny of Austen's book? Would Brandon bring her out of her shell? She's very young, but perhaps she needs a better defender than indecisive Edmund! And we know Brandon likes teenagers... :-) Then again, wouldn't he be a much better grandfather to Jane Austen's Fanny?

How about Jane Fairfax? Surely she can do better than that semi-cad, Frank Churchill! She's quiet, just like Brandon -- but is that a good thing or a bad thing? Would they both just sit around all day like lumps? Is she too perfect for him? Surely any woman who's too perfect for Mr. Knightley would be too perfect for our Colonel Brandon! After all, anyone who falls for Marianne is clearly not looking for a flawless woman. (It could be argued he's not looking for a woman at all, but that's another rant for another time.)

Some of you seem to think that Duck-face Miss Bingley can be saved. Who better to do it than Colonel Brandon! Would true love transform her shallow desperation into warm maturity? Or would he end up a grump behind his newspaper like Hugh Laurie's character?

Or, of course, you may choose to match Brandon up with Marianne if you wish, or with someone not listed here!

Who do you think Colonel Brandon should marry?

Cara
Cara King -- www.caraking.com
MY LADY GAMESTER -- Holt Medallion Finalist!

My First Time by Diane Gaston Perkins

(My first time blogging to Risky Regencies, that is. What were you thinking?)

Julia Ross is a hard act to follow but I’ll try. I thank Janet Mullany for my interview of last week. It gives a good idea of my writing life, my split personality, and the books I have out (and my A Reputable Rake coming in May!)


One thing Janet did not ask was why I chose to write in the Regency time period. I suspect my fellow Riskies have discussed this before. I have not searched all the previous blog entries, so I don’t know for certain. I may belabour this topic over the next few weeks, so this is just an overview, adapted from my Author! Author! article on the Warner website.



First of all, the Regency was a beautiful time period. The lovely Classical architecture and decor of the Georgian age became more varied and colorful, but avoided the excesses of the Victorians. The Regency was a time of great wealth, of beautiful Country houses and gardens, of lovely, elegant fashions. Gone were powdered hair, white wigs, and heavy make-up of the Georgian age. Regency women wore beautifully draping empire-waist silks and muslins, dresses that would still be considered lovely today. Men’s clothing also became more like our modern clothing, the bright-colored brocades and laces of the 1700s giving way to the simplicity, cleanliness, and perfect tailoring Beau Brummell insisted upon. Men and women rode though Hyde Park in fine carriages drawn by perfectly matched horses. The titled elite gathered in exclusive places like Almack’s and White’s. Men sported at Gentleman Jackson’s Boxing Saloon or Tattersal’s. Ladies made “morning calls” in the afternoon, and made their curtsey to the Queen in opulent gowns.


Exciting people lived during the Regency. My favorite is the truly great but imperfect Duke of Wellington, the man who defeated the Emperor Napoleon, but there is also the Prince Regent (“Prinny”), Lord Byron, Beau Brummell, Jane Austen, Caroline Lamb, Harriette Wilson (who Amanda wrote about in her April 15 blog about courtesans), and so many more fascinating people.

The Regency time period echoes our World War II era in my mind, a time of great courage, honor, and drama, and one that eventually led into great social change. The drama of the long war with Napoleon, culminating in Waterloo, a battle still discussed, written about and fictionalized today. Also occurring at this time was the War of 1812, less victorious for the British, events in India, and the humming of impending social change, the beginning of the decline of the upper classes and the growth of wealth from industry and trade, social unrest nipping at the heels of the class system.

The Regency is a transitional period between the decadence of the 18th century and the repression of the Victorian Age. As such there are elements of both, providing rich opportunities for dramatic conflict. For example, it is an age when the idea of marrying for love came to the fore, and yet, marriages of convenience still took place. Women--married women, that is--were still allowed to enjoy a sexual relationship, although more discreetly than did their Georgian mothers. Their poor Victorian daughters were not so lucky. Roles and behavior were more fluid in the Regency, less defined than the eras before or after, allowing the novelist great license to explore.


The Regency is an accessible period: Distant enough to provide an escape from every day life into a world of beauty and conflict, but familiar enough to be able to imagine ourselves living in it.

I love going into the world of Regency England every time I sit down to write. It often becomes as real to me as if I truly lived there. I aspire to bring the Regency vividly alive in my books so readers might love it as much as I do.


It is great to be among this wonderful group of authors who feel that same love of the Regency and that same desire to explore it in new, exciting, and “risky” ways.

Cheers! Diane

Interview with Julia Ross, Part 2

We are back with Julia Ross for Part 2 of her interview. Click here to read Part 1.

Q. Your writing style has been described as a “combination of lyricism and sensuality ... on par with Jo Beverley's” (Booklist). How do you achieve this effect?

I’m very flattered to be compared to Jo, because I’ve always loved her writing. If reviewers or readers see some similarities between us, though, it’s probably because we were both growing up in England at about the same time and were exposed to many of the same influences. My writing style is exactly what comes naturally. I care very much about language and polish every sentence until it sounds “right” -- the rhythm and feeling and choice of words -- plus I try to delve deeply into my characters’ hearts and minds, so I write in terms of what matters to them, not to me. In the end my approach is very intuitive, and though many of Jo’s fans love my books and vice versa, that’s not always the case, since each book is unique.

Q. The heroine of GAMES OF PLEASURE is a courtesan, definitely a risky heroine. Can you tell us more about how you came up with this character?

All of my historical heroines have tended to be a little -- or a lot -- unusual, I think. My very first (in ILLUSION) was an English lady who’d been trained as a concubine while captive in a harem in India, and returned to Regency England with a gold ring in her nostril. Frances was expert in the erotic techniques of the Kama Sutra, but -- since not even a maharajah always sampled every concubine that he owned -- she was also a virgin, and that’s what made her so interesting.

And Miracle, sought-after courtesan to the Regency aristocracy? By the time I finished NIGHT OF SIN (with my brave Dissenter heroine, Anne Marsh) I knew that Jack’s brother, Lord Ryderbourne, had to have his own book. As a duke’s heir, Ryder was sexy and powerful and an obvious hero, yet he was also weighed down by duty and strangely innocent. Since romance thrives on tension, the heroine needed to present him with a challenge -- and a professional courtesan was about as far from Ryder’s expectations as was possible. Though I must admit that when Ryder first plunged his horse into the ocean to save Miracle from drowning, I had no idea what she’d been doing for a living, or why she was unconscious and half-naked in a boat.

However, I already knew who Ryder was from NIGHT OF SIN. My hero always really drives the story, and if he’s complex and tortured, so much the better! Though Ryder isn’t as obviously dark and troubled as his brother Jack, it’s only because he’s less self-aware. So once I knew her real past, I was fascinated by how Miracle would react to a man like Ryder, and how he’d react to her, especially once he knew the truth.

Yet in spite of her pragmatic attitude to men and sex, I honestly didn’t think of Miracle in terms of risk. She’s honorable and brave and worthy of a hero’s heart, and she’s never been simply promiscuous. After all, there are plenty of rakes in romance who abandon their mistresses at the start of the story when they meet the heroine. It would reflect a very cruel double standard if those women were always villains, or doomed to unhappiness, wouldn’t it? So why not have a brilliant, sexually knowledgeable heroine like Miracle seduce a gorgeous guy like Ryder, and then overcome all the odds to eventually find happiness with him?

Q. What do you see as some of the greatest creative risks you’ve taken in your career? Has there ever been anything an editor asked you to remove or tone down? Anything readers had problems with?

To judge a character or plot-element as a “risk” implies that the author has accepted a certain set of expectations that she’s consciously breaking, and that’s simply not the way that I write. Though it might have been “safer” to write simpler or less sophisticated stories, all of my editors so far have encouraged me to go wherever the story demands, whether it’s “different” or not, and no editor has ever asked me to tone down a thing. On the contrary, my editors repeatedly tell me that my unique voice and approach is what they love most about my books. There’s great freedom in that, but it can also be a little intimidating at times!

As for readers having problems, several years ago I lost some of my early Regency readers, who didn’t like the explicit sensuality of my long historicals and let me know all about it. Yet only the kindest of readers seem to contact me these days. My fans sometimes point out little errors that might have crept in, but usually they’re incredibly generous with their praise, which always touches me to the heart.

Beginning every new book is incredibly tough for me, and it’s often at some moment of great self-doubt that I’ll receive a wonderful e-mail from a new fan. For example, a professional romance reviewer in Germany just e-mailed to tell me that she’d become so caught up in THE SEDUCTION that she was in danger of falling behind on her job. She’d already ordered copies of all of my titles still in print and was searching out my backlist, as well. I feel very humbled to get an e-mail like that, but it also helps to inspire me to keep writing.

Meanwhile, I’m absolutely thrilled that my fans have enabled Berkley to put the words “bestselling author” on my covers, and I owe them a huge debt of thanks. THANK YOU, READERS!! On the other hand, my stories are definitely not for everyone, so I don’t troll the Internet looking for negative comments from readers who prefer a different style. One of the greatest attributes of romance is that there’s enough variety to suit all of us, so no author needs to please every reader, and it’s far better that way.

Q. We hear you just completed the manuscript for your next book. Congratulations! Can you tell us more about it?

CLANDESTINE will be released in Berkley trade paperback in November with some very sensuous orchids and a lovely, iridescent barn swallow on the cover. It’s the third book in the Wyldshay trilogy, and opens when Guy Devoran -- Jack and Ryder’s glamorous cousin -- is accosted in a London bookstore by a redheaded schoolteacher from Bath. I had no idea when I began this story that Guy was hiding dark secrets throughout NIGHT OF SIN and GAMES OF PLEASURE -- secrets he simply must keep from Sarah Callaway, even when he agrees to help her find her missing cousin. The cover art and a tiny teaser are already up on my web site at www.juliaross.net and I’ll be adding more between now and November. So please stay tuned!

Q. What are you planning to work on next?

I don’t plan very far ahead, and I always take off a little time between books to refill the well, so at the moment I really have no clue what the next story will be, or even when or where it might take place. I’m going to England again very soon -- I go every year to explore new locations and ideas -- so I trust that another “burning idea” will have grabbed me by the time I get back! Meanwhile, I hope I can find the time to put some photos up on my web site of places in Britain that helped to inspire scenes in previous books -- like bluebell woods and coast paths -- though that probably won’t happen for several more weeks. Which leads me once again to thank my readers for always being so patient with me. Including my necessary “dream time,” it takes me a solid year to write a book, so there’s not a lot of spare time left over. Thanks again, Risky Regencies!

Courtesans

The last couple of weeks, I've posted on the lives of ladies-in-waiting at Court. This week, I decided to take a slightly different angle, and explore the history of another segment of female society--courtesans. (Plus, it's a very hot day here, in the 90s, and I'm feeling very, very lazy. Just reading Megan's post from yesterday is all the Literature I can take in right now! So I pulled up a short article I wrote for the "Regency Reader" using research from my book LADY MIDNIGHT. I have a lot more info in my notes--if anyone wants to hear more, just email me!). Here's the article:

"A great courtesan was no mere prostitute. She was highly cultured, witty, charming, elegant, companion to the great men of her day. According to Susan Griffin, the greatest distinction between a prostitute and a courtesan was that courtesans were "personages"--celebrities who were written about in the journals and papers of their day, gossiped about for their fashions and love affairs, arbiters of tastes and trends. The greatest courtesan could use her body and her brains to enjoy the benefits of marriage, such as companionship, property, and financial stability, without the social constraints and loss of independence. It was not all positive, of course. There was little companionship with other women, and when romance soured there could be dire financial repercussions, and even physical revenge (not to mention the threat of disease). But it was often the best of a very narrow set of options.

In English polite society of the 18th and early 19th centuries, arranged marriage was the norm--husbands and even wives had great freedom in seeking their affections elsewhere, provided there were proper heirs and the partners were discreet. "One exists with one's husband--one LIVES with one's lover," says the Marquise de Vandenesse in Balzac's "Une fille d'Eve." Thus the courtesan played a very important role in this period--not "received" in polite society, but with her own important world, the demi-monde, with its own society, etiquette, and protocol. She was paid for her personality and style, her ability to attract attention and celebrity. To show her off was a sign of prestige. To stay at the top of her game, she had to be witty, smart, independent, and charismatic, for mere prettiness was common, and soon faded.

The most famous courtesan of her day was Harriette Wilson, one of five sisters who became well-known members of the demi-rep. She was not beautiful, but she was very witty and fashionable. She and her sisters showed off in their own opera box (200 gineas a year!) and in their fancy carriages in Hyde Park. For men, to be introduced to her was the height of social success. But her stylish clothes and household were very expensive, and she fell into a debt and a bad relationship with a swindler named Rochfort (beware of men named after stinky cheeses). By the end of her career, she was in poverty in Paris, and undertook to write her Memoirs to raise some needed cash.

The Memoirs were published in twelve parts between January and April 1825, and were an immediate sensation. At the end of each installment was an advertisement giving the names of people mentioned in the next part, giving them time to buy themselves out if they hadn't already. Harriette made about 10,000 pounds, but most of it was soon squandered by Stink Cheese Man, and she died in complete poverty on the Continent in 1845."

Here are a few books I found helpful (and very interesting!);
Harriette Wilson's Memoirs (my version was edited by Leslie Blanche and published in 2003)
Paula Byrne's "Perdita" (about Prinny's first love, actress Mary Robinson)
James Davidson's "Courtesans and Fishcakes" (way out of "our" era, it's about ancient Greece, but great)
Susan Griffin's "The Book of the Courtesans"
Katie Hickman's "Courtesans: Money, Sex and Fame in the 19th Century"
Valerie Grosvenor Myer's "Harriette Wilson: Lady of Pleasure"
Nickie Roberts' "Whores in History"
Margaret Rosenthal's "The Honest Courtesan: The Life of Veronica Franco" (another one out of our period, but a terrific read, and the basis for the fab movie "Dangerous Beauty")
Francis Wilson's "The Courtesan's Revenge: Harriette Wilson, the Woman Who Blackmailed the King"

I asked in my last article if you would be a good lady-in-waiting--now for something much more fun. :) Would you have been a good courtesan???

To Kill A TBR Book

Last week, I attended the New England Chapter of the Romance Writers of America Conference.

But this post is not about what I learned about craft, Regency undergarments, writing sex scenes, themes and images, and what it sounds like when a room full of women hears there's chocolate about to be served.

This is about not reading. During one of the workshops, the presenter mentioned Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird and said everyone should have read it, and if you hadn't, shame on you.

I've never read it. How could this have happened? I'm totally embarrassed. I don't know exactly how I missed it; I was an English major in college, before that took a lot of high school English classes, both my parents were avid readers. And somehow, I missed it.

It's not like I haven't read a lot of classics; besides the ubiquitous Jane, I've read all of Dickens, Fitzgerald, Wharton, and various books by Nabokov, Faulkner, Steinbeck, Woolf and Hammett (for fun, check out the top 100 list, but don't get in a tizz about the inclusions and ommissions; it's not worth it). I've read indiscrimately, but have never opened Ms. Lee's classic, and only, work.

So--have you read TKAM? Do you agree it is a classic? What cl