Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

I don’t expect losts of historical accuracy in romances. A tone or a feel is good enough for me. But if there are gross inaccuracies, like very modern language, and public sexual choices made by the heroine were she then experiences no social consequences, I get irritated.

I think that entire thread made my blood pressure rise ten points yesterday and the day before that.

And it just kept getting worse, with more stupid shit being piled on about “realistic viewpoints” when the OP admits she doesn’t know a damned thing about EC royalties. Gah!

BUT, Lydia Joyce is my new hero because smart women kick ass. I have to make a bookstore run this weekend and I’m buying her stuff.

As for historical accuracy, I sit in the middle. I’m not really gonna nitpick if the timeline is off by a few years one way or another if the book is called a regency.

But I am gonna notice and begin to grumble when high born young women have enough time unspervised go bump pink parts with rakes and libertines they aren’t related or or married to on multiple occasions. Or when the dialog is just too modern or too painfully steretypical.

I find that I can coast along quite happily in the world of the Wallpaper Historical, enjoying the reads, even loving a few. Then I read an author or book that reminds me how fan-frickin-tastic well-researched and authentic historicals can be (authors like Carla Kelly, Laura Kinsale, Judith Ivory, Loretta Chase) and they ruin me for Wallpapers for a good several months.

Ironically, I actually just started reading The Veil of Night a couple days ago. It’s slow-starting, but I like what I’ve read so far. :)

Historicals aren’t my primary subgenre; I like them on occasion, when I’m in “the mood.” About the same way I like to read space opera or epic fantasy on occasion. So please take what I say with a grain of salt.

I personally don’t mind “wallpaper” romances, as long as the author has made some attempt towards historical accuracy. I’m not going to nit-pick about minor details, but if your heroine is a noblebred lady and you have her bitching about wearing a corset ... um, wtf?

I don’t want to read about a modern woman in 19th century getup (excluding time travel and such) ... but at the same point, I don’t want to read about a heroine who is completely passive, either.

I imagine it must be quite difficult for a writer to accurately portray historical characters while keeping them sympathetic towards modern women.

I have been under that rock, but against that, bar a skirting board or two, my daughter’s room is painted. So v. grateful for the summary, because life’s too short to read a thread that long.
Wallpaper history - it’s one of those things like an implausible plot. On occasion either of those can kill a book, but often the book is still enjoyable.

I have been following the discussion over at ARR for most of the week and boy! Lydia Joyce has made a fan—LLG has lost a potential reader and all the potential word of mouth.

On the actual topic, I must confess I don’t know enough about history to detect many of the details that drive others insane. I do know enough to be yanked out of the story when the characters are behaving or speaking the way my teenagers would (bar the “Whatever”).

In general, historical or contemporary, I find that richly developed characters within a thoroughly drawn and internally consistent background society will captivate me even if the odd ‘Shouldn’t she be wearing a corset?’ or similar thought pops up.

Most of ya’ll know I’m a history BEOTCH. Don’t put her your historical heroine in the proper underclothes (or any for fuck’s sake) *BANG* book hits the wall. Regency gal won’t marry cause she wants a career just like dear old dad *BANG* book hits the wall. Medieval Scottish hero in a kilt *BANG* book hits the wall. Medieval Europeans eating potatoes *BANG* book hits the wall. So many reasons to toss a book . . .

Never read AAR, but I’m curious to know who LLG is, because I’m nosy that way.

I do know who Lydia Joyce is.  No need for clarification.

I don’t think lack of accuracy is solely within the domain of historicals.  A contemporary can be as much of a wallbanger.  Still, I’m very forgiving, unless the error is so glaring I have to wear shades to finish the read.  At that point, I’m done.  My biggest beef is generally with dialogue.  Men going around saying silly, stupid things no man would ever say, under penalty of death.  I’m talking ANY man, alpha, beta, gamma, whatever.

Which goes hand in hand with historical dialogue that has a modern lexicon.

But really - who’s LLG?

Oh Candy, I wanted so bad to link to that utter idiot!

Apparently it’s okay to attack people out of the blue, if you perceive that they attacked someone you like elsewhere. Even if the perceived attack had been a discussion ended [by the person this utter idiot liked] with a “I won’t continue this” *stomping foot thrown in for fun* and [by Lydia Joyce] with “I agree to disagree.”

And after that all you have to do is say, “but I didn’t mean to hurt you” and all is well. WTF???

I nearly threw “The china Bride” across the room because the sexual attitudes were completely ahistorical.  A respectable British family throwing a party to introduce their dead son’s half-Chinese concubine?  Sorry, I didn’t realize it was a fantasy novel.

And when I attended RWA National last year, *all* the editors and agents said historicals were nearly impossible to sell at the moment.

Thanks, Candy.  It’s dark under this rock, and I remain clueless.  Never heard of her.  I should probably venture forth from the SBs.

On second thought, why?  I like it here just fine.  You’re my guilty pleasure in the midst of deadline hell.

Wonder why people get so pissed off on public message boards and blogs?  Maybe it’s like road rage, where perfectly nice people can become demonic behind the wheel…

Stef, who once chased a young woman in a Jeep down the Las Vegas strip so I could demand she apologize for flipping me off and shouting FUCK YOU! after she nearly ran over me.

I’m too busy laughing at the “Jane Austen must be wallpaper historicals then!” to contribute anything constructive.

(I’m not a big bitch anymore? Aww man, I need to start commenting more.)

My favorite part of that post by Lydia Joyce was right at the beginning:

“Wallpaper” has nothing to do with history lessons. It has to do with a believable and continuous dream.

You can talk about that dream when it comes to any book. Inaccuracies will disrupt the dream for some readers, not others. As a reader, I want to be convinced and that’s about it. I have certain opinions about what is realistic and what is not. I can be factually wrong about that, but even if I am, it will still disrupt the dream.

For historicals I have more trouble with the people feeling modern than actual historical detail. Others may not.

I just finished a series of four Regency mysteries by Kate Ross. I completely believed her world and I know she’s popular with other readers, too. But I have a friend who found the language too modern with too many Heyerisms—she’s very familiar with the time period.

Anyway, I guess it’s really about creating a world that a decent chunk of readers will believe in. I think historical accuracy is important, but not sufficient. It also depends on how well you can build your world convincingly.

I’m totally. . . hmm. . . “concerned” isn’t the right word, because I write what I write and I doubt that’s going to change. Maybe “stumped”. I don’t know if I write historical wallpaper or not. Is there a test?

God knows I don’t write saintly heroines who care for hurt birds and save men from themselves. *shudder* My heroines are very strong, but maybe that makes them too modern. And I once let my heroine not wear a corset because she was trying to seduce the hero, but then I met Tonda and she scared me and I wrote a corset in.

I know my reading preference is just for a good, fun, sexy story and I don’t pay much attention to mistakes about clothing, etc.. I don’t want to read about a virginal, timid girl who lets her husband berate her all day, maybe even keep her locked in a tower, but she can’t resist the insistent call of his brutal, turgid manhood at night. I don’t want her submissive (unless I’m in The Cave). I just want it to be goood. And steamy. And lovely. (And I used to loves me some Julie Garwood.)

But as to my writing? I’m stumped.

Tonda has read the first few chapters of To Tempt a Scotsman. . . What do you think, O’ Historical Bitch? Seriously. Honestly. I’m interested. Did you throw it against the wall? Ha! You couldn’t, because it was a Word file! It may very well be wallpaper, but I hope it’s kick-ass wallpaper anyway.

I’ve read the first few chapters of Tonda’s book, Lord Sin (show me yours, you know), and she’s a historical goddess! CLEARLY not wallpaper. The story is STEEPED in beautiful Georgian atmosphere. But, enough ass-kissing. . .

True, people don’t want a history lesson in their romance. That is absolutely not an excuse for not knowing a damn thing about the setting where your novels take place, most especially if you write one historical after another.

There is the internet, as well as any number of widely available history books, to inform you without any serious effort on your part, so as to help you put people in the proper undergarments, etc. Really, does it add anything to have the heroine bitching about corsets? No. People aren’t reading Regencies for your two cents on women’s lib.

And that your up there is totally not directed at anyone in particular. :-) Jane Austen as wallpaper…grumble grumble. Dumbass.

Lydia Joyce (I believe it was her, at this point I can’t atribute properly—long ass threads) said something about some books being ‘historical fiction’ not having the same degree of historical accuracy (more like a feel for the period) and yet being really good reads—internal consistency, good plot and characterization.

[I just know Robin will drop by and say it so much better]

(Amusing non-sequitur: the spambuster word for this comment is ‘actually49’)

Candy, thank you for helping the rest of us under our rocks keep up. That’s kind of you.

Now, I’d like to say that one of my favorite authors, Karen Marie Moning, doesn’t exactly scream authenticity. Apparently she had 15th (I think) century Scotland kicking back the caffeine. Read somewhere’s that it came later, much later. I think she had them running around in kilts too. I’m ok with it. While I was a history major in college I don’t know squat about scottish history or kilts and I love her writing so I get by. However, I started reading a futuristic scifi romance (I know, not a historical but I’ve been needing to get this off my chest) that placed Occam’s Razor in the 19th century. I put it down. Will not pick it up ever again. There are some things that you just don’t do.

Ok???

Occam’s Razor . . .

Huh. What’s that?

I had a really long post that just lost coherency.  I gave up on it for now.

Basically my attitude is this, historical accuracy is important but it will not stop me from putting down a book that bores me with a bad plot or annoying characters.  I can forgive inaccuracy if I am drawn in by characters or the plot.  Which is why a certain author of historicals was tossed against a wall and I vowed never to waste my time wiht her again.

I think this extends to multiple genres which is what drove me to ebooks in the first place, print books all had the same underlying plot with most books being virtually interchangeable. It was same alpha, different day, but he didn’t even have the courtesy to change his underwear.

I personally love alternative settings, attitudes, and characters for what I read.  One of the authors I like right now, Shelly Laurenston sucked me in purely because her women are crazy, loud, and violent bitches but feel far more real than the self-sacrificing heroines of regency, or the self-absorbed girls of chick lit.

Did anyone ever think that the reason historicals in other locations didn’t sell well are because ... wait for it… the author decided to transfer the same story to a slightly different location without adequately doing research and changing attitudes and behavior?

I’m with Tonda on the history BEOTCH part.

My pet peeve is when readers assume that historical accuracy(I use the phrase “historical relevancy”) equals a passive, repressed heroine and a history lesson. But then I recall that most people have no clue about history and are only knowledgable about vague urban legends such as the myth concerning the Victorian propensity for covering up table and piano legs(this site debunks that myth), or that no one took regular baths and brished their teeth before the 1920s, and a host of other inaccurate assumptions that cause most readers to associate history and historical eras with preconcieved notions.

And wallpaper historicals fuel the ignorance concerning history because, for the most part, I think that romances are used as primary sources when authors first begin to write(not to mention that the Regency era as created by Georgette Heyer is taken as the gospel truth!) and since readers view what they’ve read as true, the whole whirligig that is the publishing industry sees no need to debunk the myths perpetuated within the genre.

I can acknowledge this, but I refuse to bow down to it when I know that if I want to write historical romance, the history plays a vital part in the romance as well as the story.

Occam’s Razor . . .

Huh. What’s that?

From the Reader’s Encyclopedia (lest you think I just pulled this out of my ass):

William of Occam (c1285-1349), “English scholastic philosopher and theologian, known as Doctor Invincibilis and Venerabilis Inceptor [*titter*]...Occam’s razor refers to his famous principle of economy in logic, expressed as ‘Entities (that is, assumptions used to explain phenomena) should not be multiplied beyond what is needed.’”

Actually I have heard it expressed more clearly as “the simplest explanation is usually correct.” As in, if your Twinkies go missing from the kitchen, your husband probably ate them, rather than a band of aliens riding in on ostriches and taking the Twinkies back to the mothership to convert into fuel for the ride home, with a cherry on top.

Vicki, please tell me to stop screwing around on SBTB and go to bed.

Jennifer, stop screwing around on SBTB and GO TO BED!

Also, “known as Doctor Invincibilis and Venerabilis Inceptor [*titter*]” *snicker*

Hoodamn.  Was about to go to bed, but this made me pop the top on another beer and keep reading.  Favorite bit was from Wendy—“Honey, she’s the owner of the company in question. Jaid Black doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone.”   Beee-yooo-tee-ful!

Of course, my glee could have a wee bit to do with being an ebook author and sitting on the receiving end of a lot of shitful opinions of my publishers being delivered as facts.  Nice to see someone get the smackdown right proper for it.  Hee hee!

My biggest beef is generally with dialogue.  Men going around saying silly, stupid things no man would ever say, under penalty of death.  I’m talking ANY man, alpha, beta, gamma, whatever.

AMEN SISTAH.  Knew I wasn’t the only one rolling her eyes when Studly McBuff murmures, “Your eyes are more blue than the summer sky, your skin softer than the finest imported silk,” as he’s slipping his man-snausage to Kitty O’Shagme.  You know any real man would be saying something much more like, “Ungh, ugh, aww yeah baby, unh ungh…”

That whole “you suck because you’re smart, stop using those big words, damn you!” argument has always struck me as very strange, because by implication, you’re trying to argue that you’re too stupid to understand the argument, and stupid people are teh awesome. What the shit?

I have a theory about this (I know, you’re shocked).  I think that there’s already a certain “guilty pleasure” in reading Romance for a lot of women, and when someone comes along and says, “hey, this could be more, it could be richer, we want powerful prose and a respectful treatment of history in historical Romance,” that is interpreted as a smack against the genre AND the reader, an assertion that it’s not good enough as it is, and therefore, by extension, that those who read it, shamefaced and hiding the clinch cover, are less than.  In other words, it’s another variation of the conflation between reader and book, author and reader, author and book. 

In some cases, though, I think there are some people who don’t like other people, and anti-initellectualism can come across as a virtuous and just plain effective way to say “be quiet; we don’t like you.”  Of course in my case, I hear “speak up; we can’t hear you,” all the while collecting nifty nicknames like “college professor,” “grammar police,” “pedantic sophist,” etc.  My favorite, coined by Lydia Joyce and based on insults presented to her by other authors, is “snobby whore,” which I have extended to “snobby whore feminist” and plan to have an alternative SWF t-shirt made up.  And BTW, it’s not about GRAMMAR, it’s about INTELLIGIBILITY (sorry, just had to get that off my heaving La Mystere-clad DD cups).

My new frustration is actually Jo Beverly’s sweeping characterization of “academics” on the Potpourri Board (http://www.hwforums.com/2034/messages/36279.html).

Oh, and BTW, Candy, did you see LLB gave you a shout out in her response to LLG? 

Lydia Joyce (I believe it was her, at this point I can’t atribute properly—long ass threads) said something about some books being ‘historical fiction’ not having the same degree of historical accuracy (more like a feel for the period) and yet being really good reads—internal consistency, good plot and characterization.

Actually, I don’t remember whether it was LJ or Sunita or someone else who made that point.  I can’t speak for anyone else, but my own standards of historical authenticity are related to the idea that the characters and the plot of the book emerge from the history rather than vice versa.  I won’t necessarily notice the anachronisms, but I can usually tell whether an author has a real investment in the historical period about which she’s writing, as well as a respect for the history and the story. 

For me, it’s in the labelling.  Historical Romance, IMO, should be about the history AND the Romance.  If you want to write “historically inspired” Romance, go for it, but in my opinion, it’s not HISTORICAL Romance.  I may enjoy some wallpaper historicals, but as someone else here said, when you read a really great historical Romance, a la Chase or Goodman or Kinsale or Ivory or Gaffney, et al, it’s hard to go back to the others.  There is one very famous Regency lite author I just don’t get at all—she’s mega famous and mega loved, but the first time her heroine started talking about the “stuff” she hated, I knew I was in trouble.

The really sad thing about LLG’s comments, IMO (and I haven’t yet read any of her books) is that she came across, anyway, as someone who writes solely based on what she sees as the market, not for the love of the genre or out of any passion for specific stories.  I doubt she meant to come off that way, and she’d likely dispute my characterization very strongly, but sadly, that’s what I walked away with after her comments.

I’d say that I was really big on historical accuracy, but then Braveheart is one of my favorite movies so that screws that theory. (Quit screaming Maili, I know it’s all wrong).

To me, wallpaper historicals are when you can pick up the plot and the characters and put them just about anywhere.  American West, Regency England, Ancient Rome.  Just change the clothes and a few little details.

This doesn’t mean that everything has to be a history book.  But look at it this way, you read a new contemporary where the heroine breezes through security at the airport without having to remove her shoes and has no problems at all and you’re going to stop and say no way.  Before 9/11, no one would have blinked.  The socio/political/economic events of the day affect how people live and behave.

To me, the perfect book to illustrate what isn’t a wallpaper is Kinsale’s Shadowheart. It is a romance, but you could not move it out of Renaissance Italy and to Regency England BECAUSE the setting, the politics, etc are part of the book.

*sigh*  I cannot write for the market.  I can only write the stories in my head. The stories in my head are mostly about pirates, privateers and smugglers and are set in Florida, not England.  I just keep hoping the market will catch up to me.

Maybe another alligator attack or two will tip the market in my direction.[g]

In the meantime, put me in the camp of those who demand historical accuracy along with a good story.  I do make exceptions for people like Carla Kelly, who totally misses the mark sometimes. She had a chocolate candy salesman long before such people were out and about, and she had a butler reference moving to Melbourne, Australia, about 20 years before the city was founded.

Nonetheless, her stories are so entertaining, her characters so vivid, that I’m willing to forgive her almost any sin as long as she entertains me.

To me, wallpaper historicals are when you can pick up the plot and the characters and put them just about anywhere.  American West, Regency England, Ancient Rome.  Just change the clothes and a few little details.

Hmm. I think that may put me solidly in the wallpaper camp. At least if you include their way of speech and their family life, etc. in the “few little details”. Because I’m absolutely writing about internal conflict. No court politics. No political intrigue whatsoever. (Uh-oh. Eyes glazing over.)

I write for the internal conflict. It’s what I love. And I think those core issues are timeless. Love and hate and jealousy and lust and betrayal and insecurity. The need to be who you are or the need to hide yourself from others. Fear and pain and laughter and sex. Mmm. Like manna from heaven. In any time period.

So, yep. Wallpaper, baby. *grin*

Totally OT for Candy:  What’s the LSAT Superprep?  I spent months scarfing up used test materials on eBay, then ignored it all and took the test blind.  I do have this GREAT book for the logic games, though, that I’d be happy to send you if you want it.  It’s the Powerscore LSAT Logic Games Bible and it’s the only resource I checked out.  Would have helped more if I hadn’t been trying to work the problems, like, two days before the LSAT, though.  I fucking hated that test.  HATED. IT.

oh gods, I had to stop reading that thread after I broke 2 plates and was ready to punch the keyboard.

...and I don’t read enough historicals to know what I’m talking about.  Most of them bore me.

Historicals certainly don’t corner the market; they’re just easier to pick up on. Now I’m no historian, so probably I read and love all sorts of wallpaper historicals without ever knowing the difference. But just because I don’t pick up on them doesn’t mean they should be there.
It may be the editor in me, but I think inaccuracies, especially preventable ones, show a distinct lack of respect for an author’s setting/readers/ characters. If you’re going to write a book and you’re going to set it in a place you’re not familiar with, have the common courtesy to learn something about it. (that would be in italics if I could figure out how to do that)
My favourite example is a Katie MacAllister’s Hard Day’s Knight, set in Hamilton, the town I went to university in. The woman never looked at a map. Not once. Not even an atlas to figure out where the heck Canada is. I mean, it’s a big country. It’s been there for ages. But her heroine (who’s a dipstick anyways) is suprised at how warm it is in August (yes that would be summer) because Canada is so much further north than Hamilton.

I’m sorry? What colour is the sky on your planet? Hamilton is level with Northern California on mine, and the sky is a lovely pale blue. Mistake so glaringly obvious, so easily preventable, led to my dropping the book at once. I get that not everyone is going to know where Hamilton is, but doncha think the author ought to?

Oops…I mean Canada is so much further north than Seattle :) Bloody rant interferes with my coherence

Do I give a shit? You betcha. After reading that one writer’s response to Miss Windbag, I realize I should write for Ellora’s Cave. (Kate has been telling me that for a while now, but I thought she was just funnin’ me.)

Canada’s supposed to be so much colder than the US; how else could we maintain the giant igloo that is our capitol building? :) (â„¢Rick Mercer)  It comes from crossing that mystical line of the 49th parallel.

I’m bothered by some inaccuracies, mostly of the equine variety, though, of any time period (I just put down a book after the first chapter because the author had the hero gallop up to another horse the heroine was trying to hang on to that was on the verge of freaking out; only in badly researched fiction can one get away with this). 

For the historical stuff, I’m just nodding along with the posts here.

Because I’m absolutely writing about internal conflict. No court politics. No political intrigue whatsoever. (Uh-oh. Eyes glazing over.)

Aren’t there other ways to establish the historical context without getting into the politics of the time?

I enjoy history, but not a huge buff.  Positively hate so-called historicals that only use a historical setting for modern ideas, morals, and culture. Why not just call it fantasy on another world?

Therefore, I rarely read historical romances.  The last attempt failed on page two when the female lead asked her “date” if they could leave the ball, and he went get the carriage.  Hello…missing something, like servants and a chaparone?  I pulled a Tonda and heaved that puppy against the wall.  Haven’t touched another one since.

Okay, I’ll pass on the historical romances until Kinsale publishes again…Shadowheart…yum.

“I write for the internal conflict. It’s what I love. And I think those core issues are timeless. Love and hate and jealousy and lust and betrayal and insecurity. The need to be who you are or the need to hide yourself from others. Fear and pain and laughter and sex. Mmm. Like manna from heaven. In any time period.

So, yep. Wallpaper, baby. *grin* “

Victoria, don’t you think, though, that the way love and hate etc are felt varies from one culture to another? Not that the basic emotion will be very different, but the ideas about the emotion and what to do about the emotion will differ. For example, in an honour-based culture, an insult may lead to a duel. That would be seen as the right thing to do. But in my opinion, in my cultural setting, the intelligent thing to do would be to walk away. Jealousy - if someone behaves like Othello, isn’t that going to have to have a least a little misogyny and non-violence in that person’s background? So, say, a 19th-century Quaker hero wouldn’t behave the same way if presented with the same information as Othello was. And lust? Well, given the importance of virginity in many cultures, especially where lust is seen as a ‘sin’, and if contraception wasn’t reliable, how likely is it that a heroine will suddenly say ‘I want my one night of luurve!’ I don’t care if I’m ruined, I can still be someone’s paid companion/a spinster afterwards!’. Hmm. Think not. If you’re found out, you’re ‘ruined’ and you don’t get to be a companion, you won’t be ‘received’ and you may well end up pregnant. You might, however, make a decision to become a courtesan, but that would be a career move.

What I really want to know is if LLG has always believed that “in a romance, it was the romance that mattered, not the history or the setting”, why bother with a historical setting at all? Wouldn’t it be easier to write a contemporary romance? Why the obsession with regency settings and nothing else?

I don’t think of the debate as a case of either/or, but a spectrum that anyone can approach from either direction. The problem is that if you use too much accuracy, people might be thrown out of the book because it challenges received wisdom about “the past”. Unless you want to footnote, which some people find distracting (I love it and wish more writers footnoted) some things will probably have to be fudged. Take Lydia Joyce’s example of the night tables, or medieval history where there are just so many uncertainties.

There’s also my conviction that an objective view of history is an impossible dream. We can only ever assess competing interpretations of the evidence. Like language, for example. The OED can only provide dates for the first written evidence of a word’s existence, and this usually comes from printed sources. So it’s perfectly possible that people were using a word years or even decades before it “officially” entered the language. No one’s ever going to be totally accurate, and someone will always find something to disagree with.

That said, I’m always going to prefer books that revel in history and mine its possibilities. And it is possible to reach a consensus of views when faced with a preponderance of evidence for one thing and little or nothing that contradicts this view.

Furthermore, if there isn’t any evidence for a particular behaviour, then I find it difficult to accept its existence if it’s incompatible with the majority of evidence. If paintings, writings and physical artifacts show that women of a certain social class always wore dresses during a certain period, and there is little or no evidence that they wore hot-pants, then put the heroine in a damn dress.

If a writer really wants to write about a heroine who wears trousers and espouses late twentieth-century feminist values and freedoms, then why bother with the worries about fashion details and so on? Why bother with the hassle over how to get the hero out of his wig ‘cos they aren’t the mark of hawt hawt manliness to a reader these days? It’s possible to argue that this couple are the exception, but I find it difficult to accept that their peers also unquestioningly accept this behaviour.

It’s one thing to argue differing interpretations of evidence, it’s another to flagrantly contradict what all the available sources say without other proof, or at least a decent argument.

Jealousy - if someone behaves like Othello, isn’t that going to have to have a least a little misogyny and non-violence in that person’s background? So, say, a 19th-century Quaker hero wouldn’t behave the same way if presented with the same information as Othello was.

I certainly can’t argue that attitudes change from age to age but, on the other hand, it seems that people don’t change. We live in a comparably enlightened age, but there are plenty of men these days who react to jealousy with violence and murder. And plenty who wouldn’t. And while it may have been stupid to get yourself ruined in the nineteenth century. . . well, it’s pretty darn easy to get birth control these days, and there are plenty of adult women who manage to play dumb about that. (And plenty who took those risks when there were strict societal consequences. My mom HAD to get married when she was seventeen.)

Emotions like lust and jealousy overrule our good senses all the time (ahem), just as they always have. My point being that no matter what the age. . . it’s been done before.

BUT! That doesn’t mean I would ever, ever, ever change the mores of my fictional society so that my characters could do what they wanted. Lust may be universal, but society’s response to that behavior would be very, very different in each age. Don’t worry. I’m not discounting that! There aren’t any concubine-introduction parties in my books. Anyway, it would make it more interesting if the family hated her and drove her out of town, IMHO. Ha!

I must add. . . that the reason I’ve always loved reading and writing historical is BECAUSE of those societal differences. I think the restrictions and the real danger of taking emotional and sexual risks heighten emotions.

All I have to say is - what is up with the AAR boards lately? I have been avoiding them like the plague for weeks. I’m not sure I’ll ever go back. Man, those are some godawful conversations!

I would rely on the SB’s to summarize for me but to make anyone read that stuff seems cruel and sadistic.

Yeah, I read through a couple dozen of those posts, and wheeeee! There are some kooky people in this world. And I thought I was odd.

Abby said: All I have to say is - what is up with the AAR boards lately? I have been avoiding them like the plague for weeks. I’m not sure I’ll ever go back. Man, those are some godawful conversations!

Amen, sister! And that message board software doesn’t help, either. I guess it’s a good thing for me that the software makes it more cumbersome to keep track of and respond to large threads—I’m far less tempted to participate! Even phpBB would be an improvement over the stuff they’re using now, IMO.

“The really sad thing about LLG’s comments, IMO (and I haven’t yet read any of her books) is that she came across, anyway, as someone who writes solely based on what she sees as the market, not for the love of the genre or out of any passion for specific stories.  I doubt she meant to come off that way, and she’d likely dispute my characterization very strongly, but sadly, that’s what I walked away with after her comments.”

Robin, I personally don’t give a shit if LLG’s editor hands her a template of what her next book should include. Writing to market does not necessarily mean cookie-cutter, imo, and it doesn’t mean that the author doesn’t love and care for what she’s writing. Same as historically inaccurate doesn’t necessarily lower story quality.

The key is *voice*. If an author writes to market, can she takes what’s selling and tell it in her own unique way? Can the author create compelling characters *despite* the sketchy history?

Look at Kleypas and Connie Brockway. I doubt they’re writing in contemporaries because they felt “inspired” to—scratch that, I’m sure they felt very “inspired” by the declining historicals market compared to the booming contemporary one. But according to the AAR interview, Kleypas spent quite some time immersing herself in contemporary world, trying to figure what makes them work, and whether she’s got the voice to carry it off. *That’s* what will make the difference.  A smart writer does her research, no matter the genre, the story, or her intentions.

In any case, LLG will always have a small claim on my affections because of Conor’s Way. The love story didn’t add up to much, but man she tortured Conor like nobody’s business. I’ve read only one of her latest, His Every Kiss, which I thought *fascinating* in how unromantic it was, especially the hero. I was hoping that the book was meant to be a critical commentary on romance notions of “hero” and “happily ever after,” but sadly, dick later said that LLG had gotten very defensive when he’d brought up just very idea.

Aren’t there other ways to establish the historical context without getting into the politics of the time?

Of course. I was just responding to another comment, but also to the feeling that a lot of people really miss those old historical epics. That’s a real void for readers right now, but not for me. Does that mean I don’t love history? I don’t know. I’ve loved some big ol’ books before. Margaret George’s The Memoirs of Cleopatra is one of my favorites. I try to pass it on to people, but they usually back away slowly. The Crimson Petal and the White was amazing. But I want my romance reads to be smaller. Not dumbed down. More focused. I don’t want the h/h separated for 50 pages. Because it’s the play between those TWO that I want to spy on. I’m a voyeur!

Anyway, I’ll duck after saying this, but I think that’s what whoever-over-on-AAR meant when she said her focus is on the romance, not the history. Then again, it’s hard to focus on the romance if the history is standing there jacking off and picking its nose while wearing anachronistic breeches. Hee.

’ve read only one of her latest, His Every Kiss, which I thought *fascinating* in how unromantic it was, especially the hero. I was hoping that the book was meant to be a critical commentary on romance notions of “hero” and “happily ever after,” but sadly, dick later said that LLG had gotten very defensive when he’d brought up just very idea.
I have to defend LLG on this point (and actually I did so on AAR as well). Dick didn’t pose his question in the terms you did.  IIRC his question was “How do you write a hero you don’t like?” (this might be a paraphrase, but believe me it was that blunt and combative). Going on the assumption she couldn’t have possibly liked the hero (whom I loved, btw).

But back on wallpaper.  I’ve read most of LLG’s books.  Someone mentioned Conor’s Way.  The hero wouldn’t have been the same if he hadn’t lived through the Irish potato famine and the subsequent rebellions.  That’s what is meant when it’s said that events shape characters.

Conversely, LLG wrote Breathless.  A book I couldn’t finish.  It took place in a small Southern town (around 1880s-1890s).  Using a variation of the Greek play Lysistrata, the women of the town band together to deny martial relations with their husbands (can’t remember what the cause was).  But the key here, was that whites and blacks were in this together (you expected them to start singing Kumbaya).  I wish that race relations were that good in turn of the century South, but unfortunately they weren’t.  Now I know that the issue of racial relations in historicals is tricky-I’m sure it’s the reason there are very few historicals set in the South.  BUT LLG chose to set the book in Georgia.  And she got very defensive when readers commented on this omission.  If she had set the book in a Kansas farming town or an Idaho mining camp, it would have worked (ie: the story is the key here, not the setting).  But setting it in a region where there are issues that makes it ring untrue causes me to be pulled out of the story.  And to me that is the worst thing an author can do.

Personally, I read historicals because of my lack of knowledge about the period.  This is one time when ignorance truly is bliss.  It allows me to just go with the flow & enjoy the story. 

I tend to nit-pick when I read contemporaries, so I can’t enjoy them because of their absolutely absurd plotlines.  It seemed like every contemporary I read thought I should believe that the world is crawling with billionaires who are SWAT members going around knocking up grade school teachers and then get whacked in the head during some amazing “save the world” mission and then get amnesia.

With historicals I can fool myself into thinking, “Well, I never lived there, maybe, just maybe it could happen.”

And, as I explained to a friend once, “If I wanted to experience people falling in love under absurd circumstances today, I’d just watch TV.”

I’m currently on a Judith Ivory glom, but while I am loving Ivory’s richly detailed settings, I just finished one book in which the poor hero was forced to do battle with both the heroine’s timid resistance and her undergarments for just waaaay too long. Hey, I love a long, hot sexual buildup as much as the next girl, but as Ivory took us under the girl’s skirts, past the stockings, then under, over, around, and down those goddamn knickers—with a lot of tugging, unbuttoning, and flipping all the while—first, I think I was starting to make more frustrated growls than the hero. Second, I totally…well…lost momentum because I was too busy trying to visualize the construction of those Victorian knickers and how they were positioned in relation to the corset, etc. That may have been a perfect account of how painstaking the whole process of trying to cop a feel could be back then, but all I could think was, “Rip them. For god’s sake, just rip the stinkin’ knickers already!”

What do you think, O’ Historical Bitch? Seriously. Honestly. I’m interested. Did you throw it against the wall?

Not wallpapery (I love inventing words; if Thomas “smalling” Hardy can do it so can I damn-it!). No *BANG* it hits the wall (or *TINK* I’ve shut the file).

Women in breeches (if properly motivated) is not a wall banger for me. Caro Lamb did it while she was hunting Byron. I probably wouldn’t have done it, but you used it to good effect and I totally bought it (plus it pissed the hero off and gave the opening instant edge).

So now we’ve had our sickingly sweet love fest and assured each other that whatever else might be said about our books, they are NOT wallpapery.

And while we may all be hearing that historicals are a hard sell, of the 17 2005 Golden Heart finalists who’ve sold to date, 5 of us are historical (a number equal to that of ST Contemp; what hasn’t sold at all is paranormal).

In some cases, though, I think there are some people who don’t like other people, and anti-initellectualism can come across as a virtuous and just plain effective way to say “be quiet; we don’t like you.” Of course in my case, I hear “speak up; we can’t hear you,”

Robin, I think i lurv you.

Aren’t there other ways to establish the historical context without getting into the politics of the time?

Ok, sorry for the glut of responses. I feel like I’ve come to the dance late . . . which is what happens when you drink dog knows how much red wine then chase it with Pabst Blue Ribbon. Oh my pounding head . . . and my damn neighbors and their construction crew.

I don’t really get into the politics of the era, cause most people find it boring, baffling, or otherwise off-putting (do I really want to try and work in an treatise on Whig vs. Tory?). Jo Bev is the only romance writer I’ve ever seen pull of court politics and make them gripping . . . but that’s why she’s a GODDESS and I’m still a mere mortal.

I’m with Vicki on what and why I write. I’m obsessed with the internal shit we all carry around with us and how it prevents otherwise perfecting normal people from hooking up and being happy. I simply choose to explore this in a Georgian setting. Which means I get a whole load of mores and rules to play with that I wouldn’t have if I set the book in contemporary America. In fact, I’m obsessed with exploring the internal conflicts, the personal issues, to the point of having almost no external conflict. It seems vaguely unnecessary to me. My god, isn’t working out your baggage enough? Let along trying to merge it with someone else’s and then sorting it?

>>(plus it pissed the hero off and gave the opening instant edge). <<

Ha! I lurve to piss my heroes off. And I didn’t even mention the breeches here, because I’m sure it just screams wallpaper, but if I can bring Tonda to the dark side, then hoo-damn. Seriously, I’m honored. (And, just for reference, it’s only in the first scene and only in HER house. Not, for instance, out riding with the ladies. *snort*)

Thanks for mentioning Caro Lamb. I get tired of people insisting no one would EVER have done that or said that or thought that. It has ALL been done before. Our generation didn’t invent sex or brains or women with big balls. And if there was one woman out of ten thousand who wore pants just to be scandalous or tittilating, then that’s the wench I want to read about! Or the one who took a secret lover. Or the one who arranged her own deflowering! Yes! Which is why I wondered if I were wallpapery.

Well, Tonda, you know I love you and there’s just no getting around that, so if it makes others uncomfortable. . . look away!

to the point of having almost no external conflict. It seems vaguely unnecessary to me.

Here, here!

Omg, it IS a love fest. Someone step in and rough us up a little. Though it sounds like Tonda’s head might fall off with the slightest jolt.

I have to defend LLG on this point (and actually I did so on AAR as well). Dick didn’t pose his question in the terms you did.  IIRC his question was “How do you write a hero you don’t like?” (this might be a paraphrase, but believe me it was that blunt and combative). Going on the assumption she couldn’t have possibly liked the hero (whom I loved, btw).

Let me make clear that I wasn’t around for that thread, so I am totally talking out of my ass here. But given what I’ve seen of dick’s posting style, I have a hard time believing he could ever write a “combative” post. 

As well, I don’t see what’s to get so ruffled up about his question. If the answer’s no, LLG lurved her hero just fine thanks, what’s to defend against? Question asked and answered. What am I missing? Man, I’m continually baffled by what romance authors and readers choose to get offended about. 

I would actually like to have a conversation about His Every Kiss, if you’re up for it, as beyond a couple comments with dick, I haven’t talked about it with anyone. Basically, my position is this: To the extent that love is meant to have transformative power, it was Dylan’s love for his daughter and vice-versa that proved teh most powerful; there’s a good argument that *that* was the real love story of HEK.

As far as the h/h, well, no love to be found there. Dylan makes his power plays to the very end and wins. Meanwhile, we’re told that the “heroine” once gave up respectability to travel Europe with the man she loved, playing in celebrated concert halls. This time around though, she gives up her life to be exiled to a remote Welsh cottage at the behest of her “love” Dylan. He banishes her to exile, then because he feels so bad (not because of concern for *her* happiness, but because of *his* feelings of remorse), he “frees” her from her sequestration in the name of love. HEA, indeed.

I depends on why it failed your 15-page test as to whether or not you want to read more of VEIL.  *g*  If it’s because it starts out as seeming to be a I-will-bargain-with-my-body-to-save-my-dear-brother plot, even with a slight twist, that goes away by chapter two.  I had that plot only to play off it and to final in the Golden Heart by having a Really Obvious Conflict for all the judges who need that sort of thing.  (It worked, too.  *ahem*)  If it just plain bored you brainless, then no, you probably won’t like VEIL. 

(BTW, this is very much a cabin-type romance—historical accuracy, absolutely, and the characters are very much tied to their times, but they are quite separated from any social or political sphere.)

I’m not sure if you’ll like MUSIC—it’s got a quiet-and-powerless-yet-tough-as-nails heroine and ambiguously moral hero.  Most readers got Sarah and loved her, but some didn’t and thought she was weak (at least until the end).  And a few never entirely warmed to the hero.

But I bet you’ll like WHISPERS.  I suspect that most people will like WHISPERS.  *g*  A few will probably decide that the beginning is too slow because they like the action of the second half (road-romance-plus-adventure/captivity), but it’s a lot more of a plotty “ride” than my other books.

Oh, and I wasn’t the one to talk about historical fiction versus historical romance.  I think that was in the conversation between Sunita and Robin.

>The problem is that if you use too much accuracy, people might be thrown out of the book because it challenges received wisdom about “the past”.

Oh, AMEN!  I “footnote” my books on my website, and I try my darnedest to be convincing as possible when I HAVE done the research, but I’ve definitely gotten where-are-the-pantaloons-on-the-piano-type reviews.

As well, I don’t see what’s to get so ruffled up about his question. If the answer’s no, LLG lurved her hero just fine thanks, what’s to defend against? Question asked and answered. What am I missing? Man, I’m continually baffled by what romance authors and readers choose to get offended about.

I WAS around for that discussion, and while Dick has had his moments on the board, I have to defend him on this one.  I thought he was asking a very straightforward question about how (and more importantly, whether) Romance authors write characters they personally dislike.  It’s related, actually, to Candy’s post about being invested as a reader in liking the hero of a Romance, and a question that I think could have led to an really interesting conversation about the relationship between authors and their characters.  Anyway, I think that people interpreted it as hostile and as an attack on authors and it went kind of downhill from there.  Sometimes I also think that people don’t read the *entire* thread on a topic before posting, and well, misconceptions start to piggyback on one another until the original poster’s comment has been entirely lost or reconceptualized.

Robin, I personally don’t give a shit if LLG’s editor hands her a template of what her next book should include. Writing to market does not necessarily mean cookie-cutter, imo, and it doesn’t mean that the author doesn’t love and care for what she’s writing. Same as historically inaccurate doesn’t necessarily lower story quality.

That’s a fair point, anu, but it still doesn’t make me want to run to buy Guhrke’s books.  Even if Kleypas, for example, turned to contemps out of some sort of necessity, I always have a strong sense of her love of the genre and her strong engagement with writing.  What I got from LLG (really, I think Jaid Black just spelled her name wrong, because can’t get it, either) was an incredible ambition and a commitment to do whatever is necessary to sell.  In a way I really admire that, but it didn’t speak strongly to the idealistic reader in me who nurtures the *illusion* that the books I love were written by people who love to write.  I won’t turn away from her books based on what she wrote there, but it pushed The Marriage Bed lower on my TBB list, and for sure whatever of her books I try first will be purchased used. If I like what I read, I’ll buy more, maybe even new.

If you don’t mind me asking, what kind of a score did you get? I have a friend who did the same thing you did: made a slapdash effort at studying a few nights before the test, and still got 165, which was the 93rd percentile that year. Fucker.

I got a handful of points fewer than your friend (one fistful of fingers, not two), and I was disappointed.  I have no idea what percentile I was in, because I was sure no law school was going to accept me with anything below 170 (I was in my supreme ‘I have a phd how hard can this be’ arrogance mode), but I managed to get accepted to the top tier school I wanted to go to (the only one to which I applied, actually), and no matter what they say, I do NOT understand the relationship between the LSAT and either law school success of bar exam passage rates.  I can tell you, though, that it was the logic problems that kicked my ass and not the verbal sections, which were as fun as a timed test taken in a room steeped in overcaffeinated desperation can be.  I HIGHLY recommend that Logic Games Bible.  Had I actually gotten off my high horse long enough to study it more carefully (I’m also notoriously lazy), I think my score would have been substantially improved.  But, like I said, I still got in to a top tier school, so it’s not the end all be all.  If you want to email me with more questions, feel free.

I’m obsessed with the internal shit we all carry around with us and how it prevents otherwise perfecting normal people from hooking up and being happy.

My favorite Romances focus on internal conflict.  I think sometimes people associate the whole “historical authenticity/accuracy” issue with making sure every single detail is just right and in place, but for me it’s more about the way an author *uses* the historical moment to flesh out her story.  Obviously some of the big “what is the meaning of life and love and who am I anyway and do I deserve this and what is the nature of happiness and the point of suffering” questions are common to so many works of fiction, but in the same way that we expect characters in contemporary Romance to act in ways that are recognizable within their time and place, so should we be able to expect the same form characters in historical Romance.  If I simply changed the background of a story—and nothing else—and the book presented virtually no difference, I think of that as wallpaper history.  If, however, the characters are tied to the moment in which they live—if their attitudes and choices and values and conflicts are engendered by their place in history, then I feel we’ve moved more firmly into the territory of *historical* Romance.

What bugs me the most about historical Romance is not the placing of potatoes in Medieval England or talk of a hero’s ego before 1900 (a reader on AAR pointed that one out, and now I’ll always recognize it!).  It’s the use of *popular ideas* of history to justify asshole character behavior.  Like Brenda Joyce’s use of the mythic “lord’s first night” in The Congueror, or Coulter’s use of whatever asshole rapist hero she trots out in whatever historical, based on the idea that such behavior was part of the “culture” back then and is somehow historically “authentic” and therefore more palatable.  Shit.  Men have raped in every freakin country and in every freakin decade, and if you want a rape fantasy in Romance, more power to you.  But the need for distance has way more to do with *psychology* than it does with *history*.  And don’t even get me started on how Native American characters are portrayed based on completely warped historical perceptions of their cultures, either. If authors really want to look at those cultural differences, then by all means, do, but please realize that the whole *context* must change, the whole paradigm in which you are viewing, judging, and selectively choosing pieces of history (or in some cases, merely lore).

“What I got from LLG [...] was an incredible ambition and a commitment to do whatever is necessary to sell.”

On her website she says this:

“I went off to college, thinking I might make this writing thing work somehow and become a journalist. That sounded great, until I discovered I was a capitalist at heart. What I really wanted was to make money. Writers and journalists, I thought, don’t make money. They also face rejection all the time—why would anyone set herself up for that? I changed my major and graduated from college with a business degree and a vague ambition to become rich. [then, after various jobs and about 10 years ....]

I kept yearning to find a satisfying career that didn’t require me to work for somebody else. That’s when writing books became my new life ambition. I knew most writers didn’t make much money, but I reasoned that it would all work out somehow, and I would be like Jude Devereaux or Judith McNaught. You see, I had always been a sucker for a good love story, and romance was what I loved to read, so writing romance seemed like a great career move. How fun it would be to have a job like that. And you know what? It is.”
http://www.lauraleeguhrke.com/life.htm

So she’s saying she is ambitious and is interested in money, but she also loves the genre.

[I]I WAS around for that discussion, and while Dick has had his moments on the board, I have to defend him on this one.  I thought he was asking a very straightforward question about how (and more importantly, whether) Romance authors write characters they personally dislike…Anyway, I think that people interpreted it as hostile and as an attack on authors and it went kind of downhill from there.  Sometimes I also think that people don’t read the *entire* thread on a topic before posting, and well, misconceptions start to piggyback on one another until the original poster’s comment has been entirely lost or reconceptualized. [/I]

Well, you are way nicer than me. In the past couple weeks, I’ve spent more consecutive time on Romance sites than I have in looong while, and it has not been pleasant. I’ve decided that most people are eager to take offense at anything that’s not 1) hardcore gush 2) couched in gushy terms or 3) includes more than 2 syllable words—3 ties into 1 and 2, because as we all know, words that take more than 2 syllables are by definition so not gushy. That’s my totally offensive, shallow, hugely stereotyping “analysis.” (It’s also bitchy, so I hope the SBs will leave it up.)

That’s a fair point, anu, but it still doesn’t make me want to run to buy Guhrke’s books.  Even if Kleypas, for example, turned to contemps out of some sort of necessity, I always have a strong sense of her love of the genre and her strong engagement with writing.  What I got from LLG (really, I think Jaid Black just spelled her name wrong, because can’t get it, either) was an incredible ambition and a commitment to do whatever is necessary to sell.  In a way I really admire that, but it didn’t speak strongly to the idealistic reader in me who nurtures the *illusion* that the books I love were written by people who love to write.

First, why do you need the illusion that the books you love were written by people who love to write? How does the authors’ investment in their own work contribute/detract from your experience of the book? Does the author also have to love the story that you love? What if author of the story you love regards it as her least favorite, or she just doesn’t like it?

Second, why does “an incredible ambition and a commitment to do whatever is necessary to sell” necessarily lead to the conclusion that such an author does not love to write? Why are the two ideas mutually exclusive?

Surely, if LLG or anybody just wanted to make money, they could find a hell of a lot easier ways of doing so than going into a creative field. Writing is hard work whether it’s writing jingles, formulaic bestsellers, or obscure critics’ favorites.

Imo, nothing LLG said on AAR necessarily leads to your interpretations. And even if her comments did, so what? Again I go back to why that should affect your experience of the text. We are readers. The story is all—well, okay mostly. And if ideally we want the story, the writing, to be all to the author, then the the story, the writing should be the main/sole basis for our own judgements. Well unless the authors are perverts…*thinking hard*...or have an unnatural attachment to carebears or something. Yes, I think that’s it.

(I know you’re just saying LLG’s moved down on your TBR pile, you’re not saying “I’m NEVER going to read her!” or anything. And when we’ve all got only so much money and time, we’ve gotta prioritize *somehow*. I get that. Still. There’s something about your comments that can’t help but find unfair….I feel the need to say “I hope you’re not offended” but that’s practically an indication that you should be; but you really shouldn’t be because I respect the hell the out of you. Did I mention that I’m not bothering to be tactful this week? We should prolly continue this convo next week.)

In any case, fwiw, imo, though I’m not interested in LLG’s stories anymore (ever since I realized she wasn’t critiqueing genre conventions in HEK but actually perpetuating the worst ones); still, her writing style is smooth and intelligent.

Also, before the ATBF kerfuffle, I did not know that a Gherkin was pickle. And that “pickle” is an insult. Really?

“before the ATBF kerfuffle, I did not know that a Gherkin was pickle. And that “pickle” is an insult. Really?”

Probably depends on how much you like pickles.

I looked it up on Google, just to be sure of the details and here is a description of the gherkin: ‘Gherkin (French cornichon) is a young cucumber (Cucumis sativus), picked when 1 to 3 inches (3 to 8 cm) in length and pickled in jars or cans with vinegar (often flavoured with herbs, particularly dill; hence, ‘dill pickle’) or brine.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gherkin

So it’s a young cucumber. That could be a compliment if used to describe a writer, I suppose (as in the person’s writing is fresh, not old/tired), and it was apparently ‘a favorite of Thomas Jefferson’.

>>Can’t say until I’ve read the book, though. :vampire: <<

Is that supposed to scare me? Because it does.

Ever since I got my contract, I’ve been wondering if I would send my book to you for review. It’s simultaneously exciting and scary, which kind of turns me on. But also makes me nervous. But also makes me giddy. Maybe like a date with a guy you have a serious, horny crush on, but you know for a fact he is into BDSM.

Hmm. I think I have some unexamined issues. :gulp:

In fact, I’m obsessed with exploring the internal conflicts, the personal issues, to the point of having almost no external conflict. It seems vaguely unnecessary to me. My god, isn’t working out your baggage enough?

I also prefer books that deal more with the characters’ issues, and I wouldn’t want a treatise on politics or clothing style or the architecture, but I can’t help but think that the external stuff has a fairly significant part in how a character perceives the world and how that affects his or her views on…well, nearly everything.  Wouldn’t at least some of the baggage come from external forces? 

A character who I find fascinating (although he’s not from a romance novel; he’s not even from a novel, but the writer considers all the relationships he creates romantic - does that count? - and I like to think of this series as a historical set in the future, speaking of themes that transcend time) is Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly).  His internal conflicts are definitely shaped by external forces - one of which is a war he lost (during which he also lost his faith in God and the government).  He also has a major hang up with his love interest (I guess that’s who she could be) because of her profession as a Companion (very geisha-like), though he doesn’t seem to have a problem with whores as whores (course, he’s not falling in love with them, either). 

As for accuracy of setting, in this case, it doesn’t bother me that you can’t have 70 planets around one sun because all that stuff goes right over my head. Similarly, if I get caught up in the characters, even if the rest of the story isn’t entirely accurate, I like to think of it as being set in an alternate universe, similar to our own.  Although, im(non-writer’s)o, another important part of world-building is also to give a sense that the characters don’t exist almost entirely by themselves.  I’ve read a few books where there wasn’t much else going on other than whatever was happening in the main characters’ immediate setting; in those cases, I couldn’t get into the books very much because I couldn’t seem to lose the feeling that it was a book - it was like the characters only existed as a story, rather than having a life beyond what was written, if that makes sense.

given that you wrote about an upper-class woman who knew about the immunities granted by virtue of her position and power

This makes me realize that I have been talking too much about my own precious baby. Because I don’t think I told you that in this discussion. God, what a self-obsessed writer I am! Yuck. But no more. I’m going to control my self-centeredness! Here at SBTB anyway. *koff*

it was like the characters only existed as a story, rather than having a life beyond what was written, if that makes sense.

I don’t think my books are that tightly focused. I think it’s mostly external events that create the baggage people carry. The internal conflicts are responses to external forces.

What I’m talking about avoiding are external plot devices that clearly only exist to force the two characters to be physically close . . . I’ve read a lot of books where I don’t see much of a relationship built, all I see is two people who like to shag and for reason X can’t go their merry way and shag someone else (must find treasure to save home; must revenge selves against bad bad person; have promised to pretend to be a couple for some—usually retarded—reason). At the end of the book I can’t really picture an HEA, because I don’t think these two people KNOW each other at all.

I want to explore how attraction and lust blossom and morph into love and friendship. THAT’S the thing that I find interesting enough to keep me reading and writing.

And like Vicki I’m obsessed with getting Candy and Sarah’s opinion of my book, and terrified at the same time . . . I’m prepared for bad reviews on Amazon (cause everybody gets them) but I’m afraid of my online buddies not liking it. Or of them pointing out some huge error or stupid plot twist that I’ve missed cause I’ve read and rewritten the thing a million times.

>I’m interested in MOTN mostly because of the unusual setting, and frankly, I’m more inclined to buy your books because you seem really, really sharp and therefore highly unlikely to dumb down the story, which is an infuriating problem I’ve encountered time and again in romance.

I swear upon…whatever it is a romance writer is supposed to swear upon *g*...that I do not and WILL not EVER dumb down a book I write.

My biggest peeve as a reader is feeling like a writer doesn’t respect me—that she thinks I’m shallow, stupid, and into reading just for the sex or the kittens or whatever her particular niche appeal is.  If I ever, EVER treat my readers like that, I give my readers permission to slap me.

I also do NOT cater to the idea that “most readers skim, so if you want to communicate with them, you need to have a very simple story line and repeat any point several times.  Oh, yeah, and very short paragraphs and sentences and small words help, too.”  My point of view is that if you want to read a book, you should READ the darned book, and if you don’t, then don’t.  I’m not going to change the way I write because some group people might only be reading the dialogue!

(Besides, skimmers seem to like my books, inexplicably, because they make up their own story to fill in everything they miss from what I wrote, and since they make it up, they like it….  Not that it ends up ressembling my books in any way, but hey, they like it.)

Oh, and if you end up liking MUSIC and end up reading my fourth book, I’m warning you—the heroine will NOT have pantaloons in the first sex scene because low class people didn’t wear them in 1864.  *g*

What I’m talking about avoiding are external plot devices that clearly only exist to force the two characters to be physically close . . . I’ve read a lot of books where I don’t see much of a relationship built, all I see is two people who like to shag and for reason X can’t go their merry way and shag someone else (must find treasure to save home; must revenge selves against bad bad person; have promised to pretend to be a couple for some—usually retarded—reason). At the end of the book I can’t really picture an HEA, because I don’t think these two people KNOW each other at all.

Oh, plot devices.  Yes, I’m not fond of them either, for the reasons you’ve posted, especially if they make no sense, dumb down the characters or the story, or are very obvious plot twists without any character development.

I guess it all goes back to how one uses the social restrictions or other historical influences, as Robin was saying.

haven’t had time to read all of the AAR thread (But must say that it is a very scary place to be!) or all of usbitches comments, though I will get back to them,

BUT

What i wanted to know is what if said historical writer knows what the facts are and then decides they would fuck with her story and dumps them.

For exmaple,

In a medieval romance playing havoc with the male clothing. The 1100 must have for a male was esentually a dress unless in battle. Now I’m broad minded, but I can’t imagine my alpha males pouncing about in a dashing dress. So I fib a bit. I know it a lie but… The same with females actually, in that I hate hats! that is strictly personal, but i also fudge that.

so if I know I’m lying, does that make it OK!!!! (Please don’t bite me!!!!!)

I confess that I’ve thrown books against the wall for historical inaccuracies, but really gets me are books where the hero and heroine sound hopelessly modern and they have names that no one in the regency or victorian era would have had. I don’t know any contemporary englishmen named Hunter or Blake, I sincerely doubt there were any in the 19th century. It also bothers me when they get details wrong that are incredibly obvious like having photographs during the regency or some such nonsense. One of the things I used to love about Susan Johnson’s historicals were her footnotes, where she explained why she took the liberties that she did. If only all authors were that honest.

>She’s a Regency or Victorian heroine who wears breeches, or is a crack shot, or rides a horse like a man, or wants to run Daddy’s business? That’s all well and good, but she better differentiate herself from the 2,395,032 other heroines in Romancelandia who do the same, and if she’s a feminist type, then God forgive her (for all values of God = me) if at any point her opinions sound like they’ve been lifted straight from, say, Luce Irigaray.

It’s not just that she wears breeches, is a crack shot, and wants to run Daddy’s business.  It’s that everyone around her goes, “Oh, how nice!  She’s so DIFFERENT!”  NO ONE (except some pickle-faced old aunt) ever judges her.  The hero never goes, “She’s a terror and a fright.”  “Hoyden” is a compliment.  And she strides around without her corset and everyone keeps inviting her to all the balls, her mother doesn’t lock her up, and her father doesn’t send her to a strict German covenant school or call in the doctor.

I find most of these things to be, too often, replacements for good characterization.  Want a strong heroine?  Put her in breeches!  Want a smart one?  Make her want to run Daddy’s business!  Then she can run around and be as featherbrained as any heroine has ever been and it won’t matter because she WEARS BREECHES and therefore she smart and strong and progressive even if she has to be rescued from her own idiocy (“feistiness”) half a dozen times before the book is over.  I believe that a sheltered girl who is out of shape and terribly sheltered can end up being far stronger than ten “hoydens” of this brand.

I’m not trying to harass you, Victoria—I haven’t read any of your work, so you could handle this beautifully—but this is what I see far, far too often.

The author often never stops to ask why on earth the heroine would WANT to wear breeches.  Oh, sure, today, women’s lib = pants, but in 1807?  It would never have that meaning to a girl then, just liek walking around topless in pulic (because men do it) wouldn’t mean that to 99.99% of women now!  Breeches would mean theater actress, if not madwoman.  Sure, she can think that it’s *easier* to ride in breeches…  But that would be like a modern woman thinking, “Boy, it sure would be better to weed the front flowerbed naked.  I always get dirty anyway, and then I can wash off really easily!”  It just doesn’t work.  Besides, the girl would have been brought up to ride sidesaddle—why would she think of riding astride at all?  She might calmly ride the hero into the ground while riding sidesaddle, but she doesn’t need to ditch the dress to be a strong woman.  That’s applying modern associations where they just flat don’t make SENSE.

That said, it can work—if taken in the appropriate social context.  THEN CAME YOU by Lisa Kleypas is an excellent example.  The heroine there is reckless, has a trashed repuatation, runs in the fast set, is skirting the demimonde—and she rides astride to build on that reputation, and so it WORKS.  She doesn’t wake up one morning and go, “I’ll be a progressive woman and ride astride!”  It is a part of a very carefully patterned behavior of self-flagellation—she knows the social implications and she doesn’t laugh them off as silly but deliberately faces them.  And it is wonderful.

>>but I can’t imagine my alpha males pouncing about in a dashing dress. So I fib a bit.<

<

Well, I'd never give my hero a pageboy, I promise you that. *wink*

As to the stray error, personally I give writers a little slack. (Not that any of you need to.)

Ego for example. There’s a difference between not doing your research and just having no concept of a word’s origins. Let’s face it, none of us actually lived in that time, and it probably wouldn’t even be a blip in some writers’ heads that ego would be anachronistic. Many of us have never taken Basic Psych.

I once ran into this with “replay”. As in, “He replayed the conversation in his head.” CLEARLY not a nineteenth century word, but thank God it occurred to me right then, because it wasn’t dialogue and I might never have noticed it in a re-read.

God, that would have sucked if it had gotten into print. *shudder*

>>Sure, she can think that it’s *easier* to ride in breeches… But that would be like a modern woman thinking, “Boy, it sure would be better to weed the front flowerbed naked.<<

HAHAHA No offense taken. I’m still laughing. Hee.

Oh, shit, I’m going to talk about my book again. Blame it on Lydia!

The heroine is, in fact, ruined and that was the original title of the book. She’s as far gone as she can get. In exile on her brother’s estate. BUT she’s also an heiress and the sister of a duke, so she’s not exactly powerless and she’s also pretty indulged. So she embraces her reputation and goes with the scandal and pushes it even further. I’d never try to protray her as socially acceptable. Never.

So is it a trick? A quick way of packaging her and giving the hero a very bad impression in the first pages of the book? (He doesn’t find it cute at all. He thinks she’s an utter whore.) *shrug* Maybe. But I also thoroughly enjoyed it. I guess I’m a naughty author. Naughty! (Oops. Those issues again!!!)

i know your pain victoria. I’ve bleed tears of shit over the use of words like focus. In our phorographic/video world it has a specific meaning, but did it always? And when did ‘scouting ahead appear? Ice box?? what is medieval swearing (ignoring the fact that they should all be speacking french any way!)???

AHHHHHHHHHHHH

I spend more time researching than writing! What there needs to be is a sight where you can type in what ever silly question you have (Medieval beds, ropes or board base???) and they give you the answer.

And Tonda, My medieval characters never get to eat potatoes, or sugar, or corn. No I feed the poor bastards meat, Turnips, more meat, and for after’s a nice piece of meat. Oh and an apple if there teeth haven’t fallin out from vitiamin diffeciancies!

Oh, shit. FOCUS?!?! I didn’t even think. . . Thanks a lot, Tisty! I’ve got to go do some research, and maybe a Find & Replace. *Please don’t be there. Please don’t be there.*

>The heroine is, in fact, ruined and that was the original title of the book. She’s as far gone as she can get. ...
So is it a trick? A quick way of packaging her and giving the hero a very bad impression in the first pages of the book? (He doesn’t find it cute at all. He thinks she’s an utter whore.) *shrug* Maybe. But I also thoroughly enjoyed it.

Unmarried women, even duke’s daughters, were pretty expendible.  There were a lot more daughters to go around than future dukes.  It a surprise she hasn’t been shipped off to Naples and quitely given a small stipend and forgotten!

That said, if she’s doing it to give the locals a heart attack and spite her brother, well, that’d certainly do it…

It a surprise she hasn’t been shipped off to Naples and quitely given a small stipend and forgotten!

Hmm. That gives me an idea for a book.

Second, why does “an incredible ambition and a commitment to do whatever is necessary to sell” necessarily lead to the conclusion that such an author does not love to write? Why are the two ideas mutually exclusive?

I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive, at all.  But even in what LauraV quoted from her website, that other side doesn’t really come out strongly to me.  As a writer myself—not in fiction, but professionally, nonetheless—I do idealize the process of writing.  A sense that a writer doesn’t feel the same way—fair or not—doesn’t *incline* me toward their books.  It doesn’t completely deter me, either.  And if the books are wonderful, I could care less.  But I have to get over the hump to *buy* the book first.  One of the reasons I avoid going to lots of writers websites, etc., is that I don’t want to get too mixed up in all the rhetoric around them and their books—I want them to be faceless entitites to some degree when I read, especially if I’m reading a new author.  I’ve had several doses of LLG on AAR now, and they’ve each have made me feel like I’ve been slapped across the face (although I thought she was really great in the way she responded to my question, even if I disagreed with a couple of her conclusions).  Fair or not, when an author posts on a readers’ messageboard, I get an impression of the authorial persona, and sometimes that impression will stay with me for a while.  In LLG’s case, it’s an impression that emerges from multiple variables and that—while not a comment on her as a *person* since I don’t know her—*does* have implications for whether or not I am drawn to her *writing*, especially since I have already been on the fence in terms of purchasing her books. 

Imo, nothing LLG said on AAR necessarily leads to your interpretations. And even if her comments did, so what? Again I go back to why that should affect your experience of the text. We are readers. The story is all—well, okay mostly. And if ideally we want the story, the writing, to be all to the author, then the the story, the writing should be the main/sole basis for our own judgements. 

I agree; but before I can make a judgment about her *writing* I have to make a judgment about whether to spend my limited book budget money on her books, and *that* judgment can be initially influenced by online behavior.  I’m not making judgments about her books based on her political affiliation or whether or not she supports choice or the NRA or whether or not she’s a natural blonde.  I’m responding to comments she made about the Romance industry (and the memory of previous comments she’s made on the board) that turned me off, both in tone and content.  It’s going to take a while for all that to wear off and for me to go back to disassociating her comments from my decision to pick up one of her books.  I’m not running toward Jaid Black’s books right now, either. 

For me, this is one of the downsides of authors posting on sites like AAR.  Some authors, like Karen Templeton or Kathryn Smith (neither of whom I’ve read, BTW), seem really graceful about how they handle it.  Some aren’t.  There is one particular incident in which I was involved that ruined, absolutely ruined one particular author’s books for me.  In fact, another author (not LLG) who stood up for that author in question was also involved in the recent AAR deal, and neither appearance in any way determined my decision to buy or read her books.  My recent run in with Ashworth (well, her run in with me, I think is more accurate) hasn’t turned me away from her books because I’ve already read two that I’ve liked and my opinion hasn’t changed about that.  Another author whose books I love but who had a bad day on AAR didn’t—in her defensiveness—turn me away from her books, either.  I even recently read an early Bertice Small historical after loudly declaring my total lack of respect for her current work, and you know what?  I didn’t love it, but there were elements of the book I really enjoyed.  But that initial prompt to buy a book has to be there, and if an author inervenes in that decision in a way that gives me an unwelcoming first impression, well, it may take me a little longer to shake that feeling and be able to approach the work on its own terms.  Like I said, this is why I don’t like to visit a lot of author’s websites, especially before I’ve tried their books.  It may not be fair, but I think it prevents me from actually judging a book by an author’s online behavior (positive or negative).  Even authors whose classy comments or behavior prompt me to buy their books generally have to go through a “cool-off” period on my shelf to keep my impressions as text-based as possible.

I want to explore how attraction and lust blossom and morph into love and friendship. THAT’S the thing that I find interesting enough to keep me reading and writing.

Tonda, what’s the name of your book and has it been published yet?

HEY! someone tell those authors to quit bitchin on the internet and get back to writing!!!!!!!

I WANT NEW BOOKS!!!

i love crackin the whip. lol

So she embraces her reputation and goes with the scandal and pushes it even further. I’d never try to protray her as socially acceptable. Never.

Then you’d have to explain why would she disregard her own family enough to wreck their reputation as well. It’s grossly unfair but that was the way it went in this country years ago. You know, if it’s known that your sister has a very wild reputation, you’d be denied access to certain circles. It doesn’t matter how rich or highly placed you are in the society.

So, you can either a) lock your sister up in your home, hidden from the public for the rest of her natural life, b) marry her off to a willing bridegroom who would do it in return for a lot of money, c) knock common sense into / knock selfishness out of her head, d) murder her, e) shrug it off and live on your estate in seclusion, f) embrace her reputation knowing that you’re also wrecking the entire [present and future] family’s reputation as well as making difficult for you to find a bride of your own, or g) publicly disown your sister and banish her from your estate, leaving her to fend for herself by surviving as - if she wishes to retain her independence - a mistress or an actress.

Historically, g) was a very popular option. FWIW. :D

Unmarried women, even duke’s daughters, were pretty expendible.  There were a lot more daughters to go around than future dukes.  It’s a surprise she hasn’t been shipped off to Naples and quitely given a small stipend and forgotten!

I’m fully with you on this, Lydia.  There is one real-life case of a daughter, after being publicly disowned by her duke father for being ‘wild’, left in poverty. [Her father made it clear that if anyone in the society would dare to help her would be blacklisted by him and his ‘circle’.] I believed until her death, she tried to survive as a street prostitute but she didn’t make it. She was about 23, I believe. This was during 1830s or thereabouts. [I’d dig up the info if anyone’s interested.]

This is an extreme example, but yeah, daughters in England were pretty expendible.

For Robin: It’s being called LORD SIN (no, I DID NOT get to pick my own title, I wanted to call it INCARNATE). It’s due out next April (I’m hip deep in rewrites and must go off to run a search for “focus” when I can rip myself away from SB).

The “cast off” woman is something I play with in the MS that I’m hoping will be my second book. Accused of adultery, divorced, family won’t have anything to do with her. She takes up with a boiling scandal of a man and her family goes ape shit about how it reflects on them . . . I love this book. My old CPs—who don’t write historicals—railed constantly about why she didn’t just tell them to fuck off and go get a job . . . *SIGH*

If I’m remembering Vicki’s plot well enough, the woman is pretty much hidden away on one of the family’s estates in Scotland; not disowned, but not parading about on her brother’s arm like nothing happened. She’s RUINED and everybody knows it. Are the breeches a short cut for readers . . . probably. I would have kept her in a habit, but then I LOVE historical clothing, love the ins and outs of it. Love how sexy you can make it if you understand how people moved in it. Felt in it. A habit in a Regency setting is HOT, cause it’s one of the few chances you’ll have to show off the heroine’s waist, to have all those skirts riding up (no pun intended), the let your hero get a flash of leg . . . love it.

I always worry that in Romancelandia we go too far in locking our characters out of adventures and behaviors because we’re afraid our readers won’t go along with stuff that ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Truth being WAY stranger than fiction. Of couse, I will readily admit that many of the choices I’ve seen in books over the years were simply silly (and I hate “feisty” heroines *insert sound of me retching here*).

In a medieval romance playing havoc with the male clothing. The 1100 must have for a male was esentually a dress unless in battle. Now I’m broad minded, but I can’t imagine my alpha males pouncing about in a dashing dress. So I fib a bit. I know it a lie but… The same with females actually, in that I hate hats! that is strictly personal, but i also fudge that.

Fudge it how? What they wore is what they wore. Medival clothing can be fun. And it can totally be sexy. Ever gone to an SCA event where one of the serious historical households (like the Company of St. George) were present? Let me tell you, a six-foot-something guy in a cote and surcote with a sword on his hip . . . pretty damn hot.

focus

1644, from L. focus “hearth, fireplace,” of unknown origin, used in post-classical times for “fire” itself, taken by Kepler (1604) in a mathematical sense for “point of convergence,” perhaps on analogy of the burning point of a lens (the purely optical sense of the word may have existed before 1604, but it is not recorded). Introduced into Eng. 1656 by Hobbes. Sense transfer to “center of activity or energy” is first recorded 1796. The verb is first attested 1814 in the literal sense; the fig. sense is recorded earlier (1807).

Getting off the subject of my own book. . . See? I’ve learned from the discussions about AAR and author involvement.

I’m interested to hear what others have to say about societal strata in nineteenth-century England. Because my gut tells me that people were the same then as they are now. And a rich duke (rich!) with a scandalous sister/wife/lover is not the same as a poor baron with the same problem, which is not the same as a local vicar with the same problem. Or a filthy rich merchant who’s trying to marry his family up. Old money. New money. No money at all. New title. Old title. IMHO, there were differences. BIG differences. It was part of what made it so difficult and stressful to work your way through the ton.

But I don’t pretend to be an expert. I mean, not compared with others I know and love who LIVE for the research. People who devour nineteenth-century texts and treatise. That’s not me. But I love what I do and I’d love to hear more about it.

Maili said, ”(...) This was during 1830s or thereabouts. [I’d dig up the info if anyone’s interested.] (...)”

*raising hand timidly* Pretty please?

>>habit in a Regency setting is HOT, cause it’s one of the few chances you’ll have to show off the heroine’s waist, to have all those skirts riding up (no pun intended)<<

Heehee. Riding up. I’m happy to report, Tonda, that she is wearing a riding habit and even a corset(!) in the first sex scene. Mount up! And that lecture you once gave us about how much more heightened sensation can be when having sex in a corset. . . Well, you inspired me, girl. I’m totally going to play with that in my current book. Shallow breath and rising emotions. Oh, yeah.

So, good work, Tonda!

I always worry that in Romancelandia we go too far in locking our characters out of adventures and behaviors because we’re afraid our readers won’t go along with stuff that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

I agree, but the problem is far too many authors have their heroines on adventures without any consequences. I don’t mean in a bad way.

For example, if the heroine enjoys playing a game of billards, some of her peers might consider her an outrageous whore while some might shrug and say, “Ah, well, that’s her for you”. A range of reactions, say.

I think having this range of reactions will create a sense of believability. I think for a historical novel to lack these reactions is why some readers might find it hard to believe that it’d happen [even though it *had* happened in real life].

I mean, if you were to buck against an accepted social convention of your time, you have to be prepared that you’ll suffer, one way or another, social consequences, positive or not.

So, if you were caught shagging a hunky duke, you have to accept that there is a very good chance that whether you ended up marrying the duke or not, some will amused, some feel sorry for you while some will shelter their children from you as if you have some kind of a horrible disease. 

In Georgian era, gay men were accepted as part of a daily wallpaper while in early Victorian era, they were seen as the Devil’s spawn who deserved to be hanged, and during WWI and slighly onwards, gay men were seen as the mentally ill. It’s a life/social cycle of acceptability, basically.

Likewise for young unmarried women of the Georgian era to have fun with archery, mixed with men, was considered the social norm while later on [mid-Victorian] it wasn’t, yet much later on [the Edwardian era], it was accepted, but with certain conditions.

I think in a way, historical authors don’t always take these factors into account. Hang on, why am I saying all this to you? Based on your comments in the past, Tonda, you do know what you are talking about. Oh, well, I hope someone else will enjoy this. lol!

Meanwhile, I’ll dig up the info on the daughter for you later on. :)

Thanks, Tonda, for the info on your book; I’ll look for it next Spring.

I always worry that in Romancelandia we go too far in locking our characters out of adventures and behaviors because we’re afraid our readers won’t go along with stuff that ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Truth being WAY stranger than fiction. Of couse, I will readily admit that many of the choices I’ve seen in books over the years were simply silly (and I hate “feisty” heroines *insert sound of me retching here*).

In addition to Maili’s excellent points, I would also add that an author’s note is sometimes helpful in these situations—at least for me.  I agree with you that Romance history seems to shape reader expectations in certain ways, but I always love those little notes authors throw in attesting either to the liberties they’ve taken with a certain history or the fascinating stuff they’ve dug up that really happened.

BTW, medieval beds?  Rope, definitely, but the high middle ages.  Taking off one’s chemise/smock and sleeping maked was a cultural indication of a willingness for sex.  “I have a headache, dear,” was signified by leaving the chemise on.  The last layer was typically taken off in bed and shoved under the pillow until morning—and if you want to know how freaking long it took to find THAT out, well, it was s darned long time.

>I’m interested to hear what others have to say about societal strata in nineteenth-century England. Because my gut tells me that people were the same then as they are now.

Yes and no.  Social position in 1807 was determined a good 95% by birth, except at the very lowest levels (lower middle class was permeable to the low class, and anyone who didn’t inherit could FALL to the lowest class).  Around 1840, things had changed very little in the noble classes, but at everything below, there was some major moving and shaking going on.  By the 1860s, the first rich heiresses had fully permeated the highest levels, and by the 1880s, they were a fairly common sight and, in fact, were usually richer than the nobles.  By the 00’s, the mixture of nobility and the merchant/industrialist rich was a fact of life, but it didn’t mean everyone was happy about it.

>And a rich duke (rich!) with a scandalous sister/wife/lover is not the same as a poor baron with the same problem, which is not the same as a local vicar with the same problem.

AbsoLUTELY.  Dukes married actresses now and again.  A vicar could never get away with it.

>Old money. New money. No money at all. New title. Old title.

Depends on how new “new” is for the title and what the recipient was before.

Nobility, county gentry, large farmers, small business owners (shopkeepers, butchers, etc), the enterprising classes, the non-enterprising white-collar classes, the laboring classes, the very poor…  Not only were they stratified, groups of approximately the same level separated themselves, too, though the farther down you go the less separation there tends to be.

>It was part of what made it so difficult and stressful to work your way through the ton.

Actually, the age of the “ton” was probably the simplest (if you were in the ton, that is) because it was so very exclusive.  You didn’t see any industrialists daughters (unless they happened to be runaways who turned into actresses and married a duke ;-) ).

Likewise for young unmarried women of the Georgian era to have fun with archery, mixed with men, was considered the social norm while later on [mid-Victorian] it wasn’t, yet much later on [the Edwardian era], it as accepted, but with certain conditions.

Ah, the vague whiff of history. It’s history-esque!

I see this problem with a lot of contest entries I judge (and less frequently in books, thank god). If it’s not dated I have NO idea what era (let alone what year) we’re in. Or I’m only able to figure it out because they drop one BIG clue (e.g. Brummell, Queen Victoria, etc.), rather than painting a full picture with lots of little clues that would help me along (and usually there are lots of wrong clues about the clothes, furnishings, and social mores that make me what to tear my hair out).

Don’t let me get started on the NYT Bestselling author who apparently has no conception that the flowing gowns of the first decade of the 19th century are long gone by the 1820s and 1830s, and that the waists have radically shifted back to, well, the waist.

So many people have their view of what women/people behaved like strongly coloured by Victorian ideas and sentiments. The wild women of the 18th century were very different from their descendants. Much like most believe that all corsets were designed to nip in the waist and shift a women’s internal organs about.

I’ve also been known to call this syndrome “history salad”.

I’ve tried to stay away from this discussion because I can get pretty gregarious when it comes to debunking the “history” held as the gospel truth in historical romances. Georgette Heyer is seen as the gospel truth even though her version of the Regency era was filtered through the era in which she grew up, not to mention her own personal stylistic tics.

The problem I have with the “Regency” Historical is that even 1800-1820 can be divided into separate eras with their own particular manners and modes. And like Tonda, I love and adore historical costume—part of the reason why I write within the Edwardian era—and costume actually is a better indicative of the mores and manners than reading secondary sources and even primary sources(I’m smug b/c I’ve been able to get my hands on memoirs written by late Victorians/Edwardians).

RE: Victoria’s Q: the lower the social circle, the more “prudish” one was. The lower classes were quite rigid in their mores and manners compared to the upper echelons of society. And much like many, many people think they know how people acted in each particular period(or worse, a grand, sweeping generalization that everyone acted the same whether it was an Elizabethan damsel or a Victorian lady,etc), the inhabitants of the lower circles aped the mores and manners they thought the upper circles assumed(which were natural to them, therefore they knew how to bend the rules)—and even then, the court circles were a lot more rigid than the circles around influential nobility or royalty(as in the case of The Marlborough House Set) and when there was a public fall from grace, the lower and middle classes pilloried that fallen aristocrat(or Bertie!) more than the aristocrats.

I’ve tried to stay away from this discussion because I can get pretty garrulous when it comes to debunking the “history” held as the gospel truth in historical romances. Georgette Heyer is seen as the gospel truth even though her version of the Regency era was filtered through the era in which she grew up, not to mention her own personal stylistic tics.

The problem I have with the “Regency” Historical is that even 1800-1820 can be divided into separate eras with their own particular manners and modes. And like Tonda, I love and adore historical costume—part of the reason why I write within the Edwardian era—and costume actually is a better indicative of the mores and manners than reading secondary sources and even primary sources(I’m smug b/c I’ve been able to get my hands on memoirs written by late Victorians/Edwardians).

RE: Victoria’s Q: the lower the social circle, the more “prudish” one was. The lower classes were quite rigid in their mores and manners compared to the upper echelons of society. And much like many, many people think they know how people acted in each particular period(or worse, a grand, sweeping generalization that everyone acted the same whether it was an Elizabethan damsel or a Victorian lady,etc), the inhabitants of the lower circles aped the mores and manners they thought the upper circles assumed(which were natural to them, therefore they knew how to bend the rules)—and even then, the court circles were a lot more rigid than the circles around influential nobility or royalty(as in the case of The Marlborough House Set) and when there was a public fall from grace, the lower and middle classes pilloried that fallen aristocrat(or Bertie!) more than the aristocrats.