Congrats to Elizabeth and Gillian!

Congratulations to Elizabeth Kerri Mahon! You've won the autographed copy of A SINFUL ALLIANCE by Amanda McCabe.

Also, since we have not heard from Sue, we've picked Gillian Layne as the winner of a signed ARC of APHRODITE'S BREW by Delle Jacobs. Congratulations, Gillian!

Please email the Riskies at riskies@yahoo.com to claim your prizes.

A Day of Pain

Last week I mentioned that I was going to Hillwood House, the home of the late Marjorie Merriweather Post. Post designed the house to be a living museum and it is beautiful. She was a collector of decorative arts, especially from 18th century France and pre-Communist Russia, like the Fabergé egg shown here (not from her collection).

There were some Regency era paintings. One I correctly guessed as a Thomas Lawrence (I was so proud of myself). Another one I asked about, but our tour guide was obviously a Russian scholar and nothing else quite registered with her. So she didn't know...
The Lawrence, was the Portrait of Mrs. Michel nee Anne Fane.

It was a lovely day spent with writing friends!

Today won't be so much fun.

First is my trip to the accountant for the taxes. I used to do our taxes myself, but as they got more complex, I'd have an anxiety attack every time. It is so much better to hand them to the accountant. She likes reading Romance, so I always bring her a book.

It got me thinking about taxes during the Regency, when there were taxes on everything. From What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew (which, by the way, is on sale for $5.99 on Amazon), there were taxes on "land, income, the practice of law, newspaper advertisements, glass, candles, beer,malt, carriages, menservants, coats of arms, newspapers, paper, bricks, stone, coal, windows, corn, soap, horses, dogs, salt, sugar, raisins, tea, coffee, tobacco, playing cards, timber, silk, and...headgear."

I don't feel so bad now.....

Except, I have to go to the dentist afterward. My dentist is a great guy and an enthusiastic supporter of my writing (he once phoned me on a Sunday to tell me about a History Channel show about dueling, which he knew I was researching). He's a bit advanced from the Regency dentist, though. This is from the Jane Austen Society of Australia, about Jane's visit to the dentist with three of her nieces:

‘The poor girls & their teeth!’ a Visit to the Dentist by Joanna Penglase
"Mr Spence remonstrates strongly over Lizzy’s teeth, cleaning and filing them and filling the ‘very sad hole’ between two of the front ones. But it is Marianne who suffers most: she is obliged to have two teeth extracted to make room for others to grow. ‘When her doom was fixed’ says Jane Austen, ‘Fanny Lizzy and I walked into the next room, where we heard each of the two sharp hasty Screams’. Fanny came off lightest, but even her ‘pretty teeth’ Mr Spence found fault with, ‘putting in gold and talking gravely’, moving Jane Austen to grave doubts about his motives. ‘He must be a Lover of Teeth & Money & Mischief to parade about Fanny’s’, she declares."

It is some comfort that my dentist is not Mr. Spence!

I hope you have more wonderful things to do today! Things without pain. Tell me about them!

(I am watching Sense and Sensibility at this moment....Edward Ferrars......((((THUD))))

Oh, this is the last day for my contest. Enter before midnight!

Oh Oh, I almost forgot to invite you to the Wet Noodle Posse blog. We're doing a whole year on writing and April is Conflict month. We have lots of guest bloggers in April, including Jo Beverley! And we're giving away a signed copy of one of her books to one lucky commenter.

Amanda's New Interview!

"The perilous action and the elegance of the writing...allowed me to thoroughly enjoy an unusual and fascinating story of an intriguing era" --Romance Reviews Today

Amanda (standing in as RR): Why, hello, Amanda! Such a surprise to see you here, at your own computer and all. Tell us about A Sinful Alliance! How does this fit into the "Renaissance Trilogy"?

Amanda (as herself): I'm so glad you asked! I am soooo excited about this book. The hero Nicolai (who was a KISS--Knight in Shining Silver--in the April RT, so yay him! I think he's the first of my characters to win their very own award) was the hero's friend in A Notorious Woman. As so often happens with these pesky secondary characters, I hadn't actually intended to write a whole book for him (though he was a hottie). But I really fell for him, and I found a very beautiful, but troubled and lonely, heroine, who really needed his kind of magic--Marguerite Dumas, a French spy.

Trouble was, she once tried to kill him. Bit of a rocky start there. They meet up a few months after this little incident at the court of Henry VIII at Greenwich, still on opposite sides of ever-shifting political alliances. This event was a real historical happening, a meeting in early 1527 between King Henry and a French delegation seeking a marriage between young Princess Mary and King Francois's younger son. This weeks-long meeting was filled with lavish banquets, balls, jousts, and masques, with specially built theaters and banquet halls. England's old alliance with Spain is faltering, thanks to Henry's new infatuation with Anne Boleyn and Katherine of Aragon's loss of influence, so it made the perfect setting for an illicit, dangerous affair. And also some really great clothes! (Stay tuned next week for more research info on this stuff)

And it's the second of the trilogy. The third (which I'm just finishing!) is about Balthazar Grattiano, who is now a ship's captain in the Caribbean!

A as RR: Did you run across anything new or interesting while researching this story?

A as A: Tons! Besides the actual events of this English/French meeting (the Spanish were there, too--never count out the Spanish!), I researched Tudor clothes, tennis, jousts, hunting, Greenwich Palace (plus Fontainebleau Palace, for one scene), sword fighting, theater, fashion. It was way too much fun!

A as RR: Have you always been interested in this time period?

A as A: When I was a kid, I loved watching old movies with my grandmother. One afternoon we watched a Tudor marathon--Anne of the Thousand Days and A Man For All Seasons. I loved them, and immediately started reading all I could about the Tudors! Anne Boleyn particularly intrigued me. The juxtaposition of such splendor and luxury with such terrible danger and intrigue really interests me, and hopefully I brought all that into A Sinful Alliance.

(And hopefully, judging from the popularity of The Other Boleyn Girl and Showtime's weird The Tudors, other people are intrigued, too!)

A as RR: What was the biggest challenge of this story?

A as A: The challenge was also the part I enjoyed the most--the history! There was so much going on in this short space of time, and I didn't want to let it overwhelm the characters and their romance. Luckily for me, Nicolai and Marguerite were strong characters, and they basically ran with their own story. I had a clear picture of them in my head (they looked a lot like Heath Ledger and Abbie Cornish, though not so modern as in this pic, of course!), and they had such complex pasts and personalities that made them perfect for each other. I just created the historical backdrop, and let them go! :)

A as RR: Okay, we always have to ask--what's 'risky" about A Sinful Alliance???

A as A: Well, the setting is pretty risky! You don't find 1527 England on the shelf everyday, but I hope there is interest in it. It's a fantastic time period. And the fact that the hero is Russian, and the heroine is a French spy. But so far Harlequin hasn't told me "you can't do that" on anything, so yay!

A as RR: What's next for you?

A as A: I'm just finishing up Balthazar's story now! Then it's on to the third (and last) of my Regency-set The Muses of Mayfair trilogy (watch for them next year!). Then an Elizabethan story inspired by Dancing With the Stars (which just proves inspiration can strike anywhere!). And in 2010, the first of my "Daughters of Ireland" series with Grand Central Publishing! Now, I have to go get to work...

BTW, if you don't win the autographed copy of A Sinful Alliance here, I will be visiting a few other blogs! On April 2, I'll be at the Romance Vagabonds; April 4 at the Romance Bandits; and on April 6 at Unusual Historicals. Please drop by and leave comments, so I won't feel too lonely! And visit my website to read an excerpt...

Drink Up!

from Medical News Today:

Women who drink three cups of tea a day "are less likely to have heart attacks and strokes," the Daily Express reports. The newspaper adds, however, that "strangely, no added benefit of tea drinking was found among women who only had one or two cups a day or for men".

The article goes on to say that this study doesn't conclusively prove that tea aids womens' hearts, but heck, I am a selective news-taker, so I am going to drink my tea and feel smug that I'm doing something for my heart.



I drink a lot of tea. My heart must be AWESOME!

Can you tell I am moving tomorrow, and all I can think about is relaxing? With a cup of tea? And maybe a handsome guy (btw, my husband is quite handsome. As is my son).

Learning London again

I've decided to go to London this spring for a few days. The major purpose of my trip is to visit the Old Man my Father (who is not a tree) but for the first time in my life I'm going to stay for a few days in London and play tourist. And it seems weird, but I feel I don't know the city at all, despite having lived there for a few years (a long time ago); the last time I was there was ten years ago.

Stuff changes. I think the only city in England, other than my home town, that I feel I still know, is Bath--i.e., I don't get lost immediately after leaving the train station. But London is always changing and reinventing itself.

So, on the list so far:

Burlington Arcade. Super posh, the world's first indoor shopping mall and almost 200 years old, and still with a policy of keeping out the riff raff (it was built by Lord Cavendish who lived next door and was tired of people throwing oyster shells into his garden). Not that I'm going to buy anything there; but looking is free.

The Sir John Soane's Museum, which I've heard is amazing and full of Regency goodness.

And from there, a quick jump over the river to The Globe. Will I get to a performance? Maybe. The friend I intend to meet up with in London is a real theater fan.

While on that side of the river, there are a few other places I'd like to go to, including the house in Deptford where Marlowe was murdered--apparently it's still standing though I haven't been able to find anything out about its location.

And further east, but on that side of the river, Greenwich--old pubs, the National Maritime Museum (full of Nelson goodness as I remember), the Cutty Sark, and the view over the river to Hampstead on a clear day; and also whatever spiffy new developments are on the other side of the Thames now. If I can, I intend to get there by river, going past St. Pauls and the Tower and all that good stuff.

So if you were in London for two or three days, what would your agenda be? (Noting how unfavorable the exchange rate is to the dollar). And do you like to plan or just do things on the spur of the moment?

The Spanish Bride

I'm continuing to immerse myself in research for my hero's military background. I didn't want to break from it even during my Easter travel, so I brought along THE SPANISH BRIDE by Georgette Heyer. It's the fictionalized account of Brigade Major Harry Smith and his bride, Juana, whom he married after the siege of Badajoz, and their succeeding adventures from the Peninsular War through Waterloo.

A review on the inside cover from The Sunday Times states "Altogether, it is an exceedingly able reconstruction of historic events, in which the love story, though delightful enough, takes second place."

This was probably a necessary warning to fans of Heyer's Regencies that this book is not one of them. Personally I think the review is spot-on; I found the descriptions of military life far more interesting than Harry and Juana's romance. There was plenty of story conflict in terms of the war but not much romantic conflict. Apparently it was love at first sight, and neither cared much for culture differences. Harry spoke fluent Spanish; Juana adjusted readily to the army life. The story is peppered by minor marital spats followed by passionate reconciliations, all of which would have been merely annoying had they not been brief. In fact, a few times I felt Juana was behaving like a melodramatic teenager before I remembered that she was indeed only fourteen when they married and just seventeen by the time of Waterloo.

Anyway, even though the circumstances were more exciting than usual, Harry and Juana's story isn't the stuff of a romance novel. That cover quote made me think about what people think of as a love story. Some diss romance for being unrealistic. I've always thought it was because they don't believe in happy endings. But maybe it's the other way around. I know many happily married couples whose stories (met at a party, dated, fell in love and decided to marry) are just not that interesting to anyone but those close to them.

Maybe some people think a romance novel is all one long romp in a flowery meadow and there's no conflict worth following. Maybe they don't realize that romance authors try to give their characters deeper problems to solve than most real life couples face. And these problems are not only external, such as the hazards of war Harry and Juana Smith faced, but something that challenges the relationship. Admittedly, some authors fall short, relying on misunderstandings or cardboard villains to keep things going. It's probably one of the toughest challenges in writing a romance: to come up with two people who are perfect for one another and a powerful and believable problem that their love will have to overcome.

What sorts of conflicts do or don't work for you? If you have read THE SPANISH BRIDE, what did you think?

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

JANE AUSTEN MOVIE CLUB: Emma (1996/TV)

Welcome to the Risky Regencies JANE AUSTEN MOVIE CLUB!

Here we dish, dissect, debate, deride, and drool over various dramatic adaptations of Jane Austen's works.

Today: the ITV/A&E version of EMMA from 1996. (You may have noticed there were actually two Emmas in 1996 -- this is the Kate Beckinsale version.)

To aid the discussion, here are the major credits (with trivia in green):

DIRECTOR: Diarmuid Lawrence

Lawrence directed the 1987 BBC miniseries of VANITY FAIR.

SCREENPLAY: Andrew Davies

The much-celebrated Davies wrote the screenplays for the 2008 SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, the 2007 NORTHANGER ABBEY, the 1998 miniseries of VANITY FAIR, and (most famously) the 1995 PRIDE AND PREJUDICE.

CAST:

Kate Beckinsale -- Emma Woodhouse

Mark Strong -- Mr. Knightley

Bernard Hepton -- Mr. Woodhouse

Hepton played Sir Thomas Bertram in the 1983 miniseries of MANSFIELD PARK.

Samantha Bond -- Mrs. Weston

Bond is another veteran of the 1983 MANSFIELD PARK; she played Maria.

James Hazeldine -- Mr. Weston

Samantha Morton -- Harriet Smith

Morton played Sara Coleridge in the movie Pandaemonium (2000); Sophie in the 1997 television miniseries of TOM JONES; and Jane in the 1997 JANE EYRE.

Olivia Williams -- Jane Fairfax

Williams recently played Jane Austen in the television movie MISS AUSTEN REGRETS.

Prunella Scales -- Miss Bates

Here's one I haven't seen, but wish I could! Prunella Scales played Lydia in the 1952 BBC miniseries of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. (Has anyone ever seen this version? It starred Peter Cushing as Darcy!)

Sylvia Barter -- Mrs. Bates

Raymond Coulthard -- Frank Churchill

Dominic Rowan -- Mr. Elton

Lucy Robinson -- Mrs. Elton

Robinson appeared in another Davies-scripted Austen: she was Mrs. Hurst in the 1995 miniseries of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE.

Guy Henry -- John Knightley

Dido Miles -- Isabella Knightley

Peter Howell -- Mr. Perry

Judith Coke -- Mrs. Goddard

Alistair Petrie -- Robert Martin

So....what did you think??? How did the script work for you? The casting? Or anything else?

All opinions welcome!

And join us next Tuesday, when we discuss the new adaptation of SENSE AND SENSIBILITY!

Cara
Cara King, who rarely scolds puppies, and never talks about her caro sposo in public

Diane Update

So many people wake up in the morning wondering, "What is Diane up to?" I thought I would do a Diane Update.

Writing Life: This has been a good month for Riskies, writing-wise. I'm very happy to announce that Harlequin/Mills & Boon have given me another book contract, 4 books and 1 novella (the one with Amanda and Deb Marlowe). (Yippee!) I'm leaving the world of people that began with The Mysterious Miss M and writing what I call my Three Soldiers Trilogy, still in the Regency. Three soldiers experience the same traumatic event in Spain that affects the rest of their lives.

Health and Beauty: I am still trying to lose the weight I've put on since 2003 (I won't say how much but I don't weigh as much as that scale shows!) My latest attempt is with the South Beach Diet. I'm not following the meal plans, because I am so-not-a-cook, but I am following the food guidelines. Basically South Beach means giving up bread, pasta, potatoes and candy (Sniff!) but it has been surpisingly easy---for the first week. As Keira knows, I also go to Curves. My goal is to go at least three times a week. Burning question--Can I lose the weight by the RWA Conference this summer?

I also caved in to the Leeza Gibbons infomercial for Sheer Cover Make-up. I like it! But I also like Bare Minerals, which I first purchased from an infomercial a few years ago. Here's a nice discussion of both.

Entertainment: Amanda's convinced me I should see Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day. Not hard to do, because I recently saw Enchanted and have become an Amy Adams fan. I LOVED Enchanted! How nice to see a happy movie for a change. Enchanted, by the way, is on sale at Target this week at $14.99! (I have also watched the Kate Beckinsale Emma on Masterpiece and can't wait for Cara to discuss it!)

Wednesday I am going to see Merriweather Post's Hillwood House here in Washington, DC. Marjorie Merriweather Post was a great collector of 18th and 19th century European and Russian art. The house features a room with an Adams ceiling, if I am remembering correctly.

That's it! Breathe a collective sigh of relief that you are now up-to-date on Diane, something I also attempt on my website. By the way this is the last week for my website contest, with a Kathryn Caskie book as one of the prizes.

So....what is your news in Writing, Health and Beauty, and Entertainment? I wake up every morning wondering....

Meet Delle Jacobs

Welcome to the Riskies, Delle!

Thanks so much for inviting me to be a Risky For a Day! I love reading your blog, and it's a real pleasure to be a part of it. I'll have a signed ARC of my latest release, Aphrodite's Brew, plus a little chocolate gift (not an Easter Bunny) for one of you at the end of the day. Just be sure to send me your email address so I can arrange shipping with you!

And while I'm promoting, let me drop a few lines about the Royal Ascot, which I'm coordinating this year. There's lots of new information, so be sure to check it out on the Beau Monde website. It's a fabulous contest, a great place to try out your Regencies, with terrific prizes, wonderful critiques and comments, and wonderful editors for the final round. Save money by entering electronically, or be traditional and send a paper entry. Unusual and cross-genre Regencies are encouraged, and fimalsts whose entries are outside the gsub-genres the final round editors would buy will be provided with an extra read by an editor who acquires that sub-genre. And all non-finalists' names will be put into a drawing for several 50-page critiques for non-finaling entrants.

Enough of the soapbox. Onward to the questions now.

I'll join you briefly on your soapbox before we both jump off to also encourage people to enter. I'm one of the writers who first published as a result of the contest! Now tell us about Aphrodite's Brew.

Aphrodite's Brew is what I call my piece of fluff, although it really isn't all that fluffy. I meant for it to be a Regency Romp, emphasis on the Romp. Comedy bordering on slapstick. Not a book to be taken seriously, just one to be fun. But by the second draft, my characters started to take on more angst, more depth, and the book had a different tone and blend than I had originally planned.

It's just an ordinary restorative tonic for women that Sylvia, Lady Ashbroughton, makes and secretly sells to finance her beloved step-daughter's entrance into society. She has no notion it has an entirely different effect on men. But the bachelors of the Ton are suddenly and eagerly rushing giddly off to Gretna Green and committing the unthinkable atrocity agaist bachelorhood .

Word has it a love potion has fallen into the hands of the match-making mamas. The gay blades are all doomed. Val--Lord Vailmont, a man of science and reason who scoffs at magic, witchcraft and the like, vows to prove to his superstitious friends they are being duped. A wager ensues, and the embittered widower who has vowed never to marry again sets out to hunt down the perpetrator of the hoax. The clues lead his straight to Sylvia, and one look in her silver-green eyes sets his soul spinning as if he has just encountered a witch.

Sylvia needs no handsome earls prying into her life. If Val learns of her secret trade in potions, she will be ruined and her beloved stepdaughter will be deprived of her Season. Worse, the earl could uncover Sylvia’s most shameful secret—her weakness for handsome men like him. So she protects her fragile heart from him by concocting an old family charm to wear in a locket. But neither logic nor charms can combat the stubborn love that sweeps them into a whirl of unbridled passion.

And, from somewhere in the mists of time, a forgotten, nameless god is laughing.

I have a great video for Aphrodite's Brew, full of my own art work. Check it out-- I hope you enjoy it.

How hard was it to incorporate paranormal elements in a novel set in the early industrial/late enlightenment period?

I think it's both easy and hard. Regency readers and writers often show great attention to detail and accuracy, sometimes to the point where we are almost writing non-fiction instead of romance. Paranormal, on the other hand, calls for suspension of disbelief on a large scale. But that's the very premise of Aphrodite's Brew: pitting fact and reason against mysticism, the unreal, ethereal elements no facts or logic can explain. The Regency period is perfect for this because it sits squarely between the ancient world of faith and belief in things ethereal and the modern world of science and rationality. I chose my two characters to represent the duality. Val doesn't believe in much of anything that can't be rationally explained, but Sylvia has roots deep in the past, perhaps, I've hinted, all the way back to the pre-literate ancient Celts. To me, this premise is like England itself, a modern industrial, literate land surrounded and deeply ingrained in its own long history.

What do you love/hate about the Regency?

I don't hate anything about it. The Regency was what it was, flaws and all. I think it's easy to look back on the past and criticize. It would be hard to go back from the present and live in the past, but if we were born there with no knowledge of what the future would bring, we wouldn't think it so bad. Just as in today's world, we'd see things that ought not to be, and perhaps try to change them. And we'd look back at the previous generations and wonder how the could stand their primitive lives. There were things like slavery and lack of rights for women I would not want to live with, and I not be at all keen to go back any time before Pasteur. But if I didn't know what germs were, and if my expectations of life were lower, I doubt I'd be overly worried about the things that are such issues for me today.

You've had a rather tortuous path to publication--what advice do you have for those struggling toward publication?

I noticed you said tortuous, not tortured. I had to go back and look to be sure, because either would fit. Part of my struggle had to do with coming to recognize I have stories to tell that may not be what New York wants to hear or publish. I suspect I always knew that to some degree, but it was difficult for me to accept the choice I really had, to either write the stories that are highly commercially viable, and hope to sell them even if they aren't stories I want to write, or write what speaks to me even if it has a smaller audience. I'm afraid I still haven't completely resolved that one. I'm still looking for the middle ground. To put it another way, I'm still trying to find MY story that is also THEIR story.

I think I would advise authors to know their market, yes, but more than that, to really analyze their own goals for writing. Find out what it is you REALLY want from your writing career. Would you write anything your editor or agent told you to write (assuming you got such a directive) even if it happened to be a subject you hate? What would you do, how far would you go to get published? Or are you like the fellow who used to sit on the other side of my cubicle wall, and refuse to change a single word of your story, even knowing you would pass up publication for your decision? Do you fall in between? Find out by ruthlessly examining yourself where you fit. It's perfectly possible you will be one of those perfect fits in the genre of romance, writing story after story you love, and selling it to editors and readers who love it too. But if not, try to understand where you fit, and if your story doesn't fit THEIR story, how much are your willing to bend? Or conversely, how can you find the stories that are perhaps different enough to blaze a new trail through the forest of fiction?

A risk is a risk is a risk. The question is, are you willing to pay the price?

The Riskies question: do you--or your editor-- consider you took a risk with this book?

To begin with, it was originally written as a traditional Regency with a paranormal plot, mixed heavily with comedy. Sex was added in the second draft because it needed to be there. At the time, this mix was a pretty hard sell. Traditional Regencies didn't have sex for the most part-- wow, has that changed! The tone is strongly Regency. The comedy was almost slapstick in places and definitely pokes fun at the characters. And paranormal wasn't often done. The book has been rejected for all of the above by various editors. One loved it, but didn't want any fantasy elements in her house's stories. One didn't want sex in Regencies. At least one reviewer has actually taken this book seriously, and that really blows my mind. Humor is hard, and never so hard as when the reader doesn't get it. Mostly, though, this book didn't sell to the big houses because it was thought of as a traditional Regency. Three editors attempted to buy it, but in every case it lost out because they saw it as a traditional Regency, at the very moment their Regency lines were coming crashing down. It is a very strange feeling to have several editors all gushing over a book they can't buy.

All that, though, made it a perfect book for Samhain. As a smaller press that publishes both electronically and in print, they can attract just exactly the right audience. Traditional Regency lovers are learning to find the stories they love in e-books. And they've changed enough with the times that a more sensual story is very welcome, as long as it actually makes sense with the times. Paranormal has become so popular, it has become an asset, not a liability. So I guess part of the risk has to do with timing.

What's next for you?

Another risky book. Sins of the Heart, which won the Royal Ascot and several other contests (but was written after I decided I didn't need any more Golden Hearts) is an adventure Regency romance. Its setting is risky-- a small town in Cornwall, not the ballrooms of London. It's as much about spies and smugglers as it is about deceit and betrayal. And maybe it's not as risky as the one that will follow it because I'm straying into the dangerous territory of religion. One of the strongest characters in Sins is a charismatic Cornishman who, like most commoners of Cornwall, is a fervent Methodist who sees no contradiction at all with his frequent dabbling in the Free Trade. I haven't started this book yet, except in my head, and maybe, if I write it, I'll keep it to myself. I'm enamored with the conflict between Davy's rigidly moral, sometimes authoritarian conscience and the Frenchwoman spy he was forced to rescue off the very beaches of France. She is everything he doesn't believe is right, but he can't stop thinking about her.

After that, more risky stuff. Currently I have a series planned around the Laughing God in Aphrodite's Brew. The next is Gilding Lilly, a Cinderella-Ugly Duckling sort of story in which beauty doesn't win out, after all. There are also two minor characters in the first book who you probably wouldn't think worthy of their own romance, and they aren't-- yet. They're beautiful faces on shallow people. In Lilly, they begin to let slip things that show they aren't so shallow, but are caught in a trap the don't understand and can't escape. It will take another book before they grow enough to be the hero and heroine we want to root for, and finally when they have at last struggled and grown so much, they will need their own story.

I'm also doing something completely off kilter for me, Siren, a very sensual historical fantasy of the sea. You can see the video for it on YouTube even though I haven't yet finished the book. It was my first video, but I've very proud of it. I think I'll be very proud of the book too.

You see, I love writing risky stuff. And I think I'm finally getting the idea that I don't have to write what I don't want to write. Yes, true, I'd love to be rich and famous. But not quite as much as I love writing my stories my way. I think that's called being eccentric. But that's okay. I'm old enough now that eccentric sounds good to me.

Fast Forward? Or Rewind?

Let's talk about--pacing. Not the sort I do on a treadmill (or should be doing--that 10 pounds won't lose itself before RWA!). The kind that moves stories along. It all sounds dull, doesn't it, especially compared with hunky heroes and sparkly dialogue, but it's vital. Without the right pacing, Mr. Hunk is mired in the quicksand. When it's 'on', hopefully the reader doesn't notice it at all. They're too busy skipping happily through the engrossing story. When it's off--well, readers can feel caught in the quicksand, too.

Here is what made me think about it--movies. Two of them. I was watching the DVD of The Holiday. Amanda and Iris (aka Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet) switch houses for Christmas, to get away from disastrous relationships, etc. Kate goes to Cameron's fab mansion in L.A., Cameron to Kate's ramshackle (but probably vastly expensive) cottage in Surrey.

There's quite a bit I like in this movie. The two women are appealing characters, their stories interesting enough--I wanted them to find love and be happy! And, let's face it, the Jude Law character is like my Ideal Man. He's English, a book editor, has a terrific London house and 2 adorable daughters, and is funny and emotionally aware on top of it. Kate's story involves a bit more wheel-spinning and a purported sort-of romance with Jack Black, of all people, but I like her. So far--good.

But, let's talk editing. This movie tries to tell two stories, and yet the set-up alone takes nearly half an hour. We see what jerks the respective ex-boyfriends are (repeatedly), how neurotic Amanda is and how insecure Iris is (again, repeatedly). There are long scenes about the on-line house swap, driving to the houses, etc. I ended up fast-forwarding a bit here, and still had no trouble following the story at all. The set-up could have taken, oh, about ten minutes, and we would have gotten to Jude Law, I mean the rest of the story, sooner.

Contrast this with a gem I saw in the theater last weekend, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day. The roles, every one of them, were perfectly cast. From the leads (Amy Adams and Frances McDormand), to the so-called villain (the wonderful Shirley Henderson), to the men (2 Jane Austen film vets, Ciaran Hinds and Mark Strong, and the Pie Maker, er, Lee Pace. I knew from Pushing Daisies he was cute--now I see he's sexy, too!). Every scene is vital to moving the story forward. Not a line of dialogue is wasted. The world of late '30s London is beautifully built through sets and costumes. The actors can just be let loose into the story, and it all falls into sparkly (and ultimately very emotionally moving) place.

This pacing thing is something I really worry about as a writer. Where should the story even start? There's always backstory a reader needs to know, but we don't want to bore the snot out of them in Chapter One, and thus prompt fast-forwarding (like I did with The Holiday). Without a strict word count and some deadline structure, I do tend to meander a bit. I'm working on my Balthazar/1530s Caribbean book right now. I did lots of research for this one, on ships, life in the islands, nautical charts, pirates, etc. In addition, the characters have rather, um, complicated pasts (and personalities!) that are important to their relationship now.

How much of all this do I put in? When? What's really important, and what's just my half-hour set-up? I struggle a bit with this these days. But I do get a great deal of inspiration from looking at images like this one of Orlando!

So, I need your help. What do you like to see in stories? What can you do without? What makes you fast-forward through movies or books? And have you seen The Holiday or Miss Pettigrew (I recommend both, BTW!)??

Happy Easter, everyone! Save me some Cadbury Caramel eggs. And a Godiva chocolate bunny. (Oh, and Keira informed me that A Sinful Alliance is now being shipped from Amazon! Yay! Next Saturday join us for a chance to win an autographed copy--but if you can't wait...)

Looking For Love In All The Wrong Places

My brain resembles nothing more than confetti on a windy day: "Where does the towel bar go?" swoops by, followed by a scrap of paper with "Remember to pay the ConEd bill" and another one announcing "I am even more tired than usual."

See, it's Moving Week here at Casa Frampton.

BUT I have had time to do some fun stuff--my Eight Year-Old son got his report card last week, and we had promised him if he got good grades he could watch Hellboy starring Ron Perlman and Selma Blair (interesting sidenote: Rupert Evans who played Margaret's brother in Frampton Obsession North and South is in this, too). (Let's not talk about an eight year-old watching a PG-13 movie with that title. He can handle it, is all I can say, although other random things freak him out. Go figure).

I loved it, too. And, of course, it's got a romance--Hellboy loves Liz, but things don't come to a resolution until the end, when they engage in a (literally) fiery kiss. And I realized, yet again, as I watched and sighed, that I always search out the romance. And, if you are liberal in your application, romance is everywhere: In fairy tales, in mysteries (although Miss Marple's love interest might just be tea), in film (and if it's not a romance, the character might just be in love with power, or money, or his or her own neuroses), the X Files, in celebrity gossip (who's Paris in love with this week?)

I bet regular romance readers look for the romance all the time--we, as Chuck Woolery might say, need to find the Love Connection (see, I told you I was scattered. Name-checking Chuck Woolery?!? I am definitely off my rocker).

So what are your favorite 'It's secretly about the romance' pieces of media?


Megan

PS: As another sidenote, I really miss writing. I cannot wait until I can get back to it. Leaves a large gap in my life.

Shameless self promotion

I don't do this too often so today I'm talking about me!me!me!

First off, the DA BWAHAHA Tournament kicks off its voting today, at Smart Bitches Trashy Books and Dear Author. I have, ahem, two books--The Rules of Gentility and Forbidden Shores, in historical and erotic category respectively. So check in at both locations and vote for me--

UPDATE, FRIDAY 3/21: I'm up again--Vote for Forbidden Shores before 3:00EST today at Dear Author. Thanks!

Pause for rant. I get very annoyed by being asked to vote for books I haven't read by people I may not know on a zillion different places online. Do I vote because I like the person who wrote the book or the person who asked me to vote? What if I like or know either of them but thought the book was rubbish? Or hadn't read it?

Well, now that's your problem. Share your views on this phenomenon, if you like...

And now for the big news--I have a three-book contract with Little Black Dress (UK) for more Regency chicklit, who are also publishing their edition of The Rules this September. I'm their first historical writer. I don't know when the first of the three books will be out but the heroine (a very naughty girl) is Caroline, who makes a brief appearance in The Rules, trying to get into Inigo's (tight) trousers.

I'm in good company at LBD, with talented writers like Julie Cohen (who by an odd coincidence is one of my CP's best friends and lives in my home town of Reading). Her latest LBD book One Night Stand is set in Reading, the town where Oscar Wilde went to goal and Jane Austen to school (or, as I like to say, possibly the other way round).

Bad news is LBD titles aren't distributed in the US--but you'll be able to buy them on amazon.co.uk and at LBD's site.

So I'm celebrating!

Setting or Story?

Right now, I'm taking a break between drafts of my mess-in-progress to fill some research craters in my story. I know that the most organized writers say one should do research beforehand. I actually do that, but then my characters go places and do things I hadn't envisioned at the start. Which means another round of research, going back through books I've already read to find things I didn't realize I should have taken notes on.

It makes me wonder which really comes first for me: the setting or the story.

Many of my stories ideas come from tidbits of historical accounts I've read. Yet once I get going, the story comes over. I think (I hope!) this is where the deeper and more universal themes start surfacing. This is the point where I go back through my sources to try to make the history fit--or at least be able to write a good Author's Note explaining what I've tweaked.

I've heard some people say that a Regency (perhaps they meant the traditional Regency) should be a story that couldn't possibly take place in any other setting. On the other hand, how about the transformation of Pride & Prejudice to Bridget Jones's Diary or