Back to Top

Monthly Archives: July 2006

Happy Bastille Day!

Updated on by


Or rather, happy day after Bastille Day, since July 14 is the time to celebrate the day in 1789 when an angry mob stormed the prison and released scads of prisoners–well, 7 anyway. It was officially declared a national holiday on July 6, 1880. It’s a good excuse to spend your weekend drinking champagne, eating wonderfully unhygenic cheese, wearing berets, and listening to “La vie en rose” over and over (it’s MY excuse, anyway, though really every day is a good day for champagne and Piaf!)

To help you get your celebration in order, here are a few links to give you some party pointers and a few quotes to inspire you. 🙂

Fun party drinks (they mostly appear to be sticky-sweet concoctions made from things like cherry brandy, but I think the Marie Antoinette sounds sort of yummy…)

Fun party menus (though with drinks like the Montmartre, who needs food???)

Official stuff from the French Embassy

And more on how to celebrate

“France has more need of me than I have need of France” –Napoleon

“It’s true that the French have a certain obsession with sex, but it’s a particularly adult obsession. France is the thriftiest of all nations; to a Frenchman sex provides the most economical way to have fun. The French are a logical race.” –Anita Loos

“In America, only the successful writer is important; in France all writers are important; in England no writer is important; and in Australia you have to explain what a writer is” —
Geoffrey Cottrell

“I have tried to lift France out of the mud. But she will return to her errors and vomitings. I cannot prevent the French from being French.” –Charles de Gaulle

“Boy, those French. They have a different word for everything.” –Steve Martin

“Paris is always a good idea.” –Audrey Hepburn in Sabrina

“To err is human. To loaf is Parisian.” –Victor Hugo

“Frenchmen are like gunpowder, each by itself smutty and contemptible, but mass them together and they are terrible indeed!” –Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Vive la France!

Posted in Frivolity | Tagged , , | 5 Replies

Bertie Goes to the Movies

Updated on by

Greetings, O Patrons of the Regency! It is I, once again — Bertram St. James, Exquisite as ever, here to grace you with my Presence.

In case there are Newcomers to this Blog, I shall merely say that not long ago I was a Cheerful and Decorative denizen of the year 1811, but by some accident of Natural (or Supernatural) Philosophy, found myself in your current age. So now I am trying to “Fit In” in this Velocitudinous Era.

Once I made the acquaintance of the Tele Vision, I spent much time studying it. But now that the Tele Vision has cruelly begun showing the same thing that it showed in February, I have turned to the Cinema instead.

Here, for your Delectation, are my opinions on some “Movies” that I have seen.

First, I saw a Movie about fashion. Modern Fashion is quite ugly. I do not understand it at all. However, I am glad that the characters in this Movie learned that Fashion is indeed quite important. (I could not bear to face an existence without it.) But what these characters fail to understand is that it is also important for Fashion to be Aesthetically Pleasing.

One thing puzzled me, though…the white-haired lady in this movie strongly reminds me of Mrs. Drummond-Burrell, who is Not my favorite person. Mrs. D-B has ghastly taste in handkerchiefs, and she once failed to invite me to a dinner-party I very much wished to attend. And her manner? I shudder just thinking of it.

But on to the next Movie! I confess I did not understand Super Man in the least. Is he an American God of some sort? If so, he really should put some clothes on. I grew quite embarrassed watching him. True, were he wrestling or boxing or swimming, he might be guilty merely of atrocious colour-choices — but he larks about in front of ladies and children and editors in his underthings — his Blue And Red underthings! I feel faint merely thinking about it.

One thing I will say in his favour, though — his hair is divine. Never a lock out of place. I do wish I had his hair. Mine never will hold a curl properly.

At length, I saw the Movie entitled “Pirates of the Something or Other, Dead Something Something.” (I detest long titles. Can never recall them. Shakespeare had that fault — all I can ever remember was that I once saw Kemble in “The History of King –” and then my memory fails me — some king or other — dashed if I can ever remember which one. There was a lot of killing, and far too much talking — does anyone know which play that was?)

Ahem. Where was I? Oh, yes. I saw that Pirate Movie thing. Very interesting. Some of the folk were wearing actual clothing. And hats. I like hats. Don’t know why you modern lot never wear them. Unless you are in a “Musical Video” wearing many chains.

Oh, goodness, what was I saying? Pirates. Right. Don’t understand why the Ladies find that Sparrow character attractive. He’s quite a mess. His hair is barbaric — don’t supposed he’s combed it since he was breeched. And his teeth! No, it’s utterly beyond me. If he were on my doorstep, I’d have my man send him on his way right enough. How can you ladies tolerate him? Please explain. I do wish I understood it.

That Turner fellow is slightly better. But not much. Handsome enough, I suppose, but far too dirty. And both of them need fencing lessons. Sloppy footwork, no style at all.

I would much appreciate it if any of you could solve for me any of the following conundrums :

Why do the ladies like these Turner and Sparrow characters?

Why don’t modern folk wear hats?

Why doesn’t Super Man put some clothes on?

Who is Super Man’s hairdresser? And is he taking new clients?

Until I learn the answers to these, I will remain, as always,

Yours Truly,

Bertie the Beau

Posted in Frivolity | Tagged , | 10 Replies

Speak softly and carry a big stick

Updated on by

Ah, les garcons.

Time for another confession. The boys–Butler, Gruffudd, Firth, Bean, Northam, et al don’t do a whole lot for me. Furthermore, most men on cover art do even less. (What? And I call myself a romance novelist? Well, I did fail the trad reading challenge, and there’s also the issue of the HEA which I intend to blog about another time.) The whole topic of unwholesome romance cover art is covered elsewhere–check out the Smart Bitches–and I’m glad to see that some publishers are taking out the hero and/or heroine and moving away from the clinch cover. I mean, splutter, some of us have to read this stuff on public transport!

Back to the topic of male eye candy, partly inspired by a discussion on the Beau Monde loop, about how you’d describe your hero, e.g. Alan Rickman in Sense and Sensibility. Pam Rosenthal very sensibly suggested that the hero should be seen through the eyes of the heroine, bringing up the interesting point that the hero in chapter one might–and should–look quite different from the hero of the last chapter.

But without further ado, here is male cheesecake circa 1800, presented by Ingres. And yes, he did end the painting right there. Now, I think this guy is interesting. Quite apart from the issue of rethinking the sideburns (and, honey, that’s a fabulous highlight job–who does your hair?), he doesn’t have the overly broad shoulders, six-pack abs, and narrow waist/hips of the historical-set hero. He is, in fact, quite muscular but a bit chunky around the middle–all that vin ordinaire, I guess, considering the model is almost definitely French–and his equivalent on the other side of the Channel would attribute it to the beer (as would a modern-day Englishman). One gets the impression that once he resumes his normal posture he’d go bluh-uh-uh (happens to me all the time). He would, probably, have a great butt and legs to compensate, though, from all that walking and riding and athletic pursuits (my daughter also told me he might have a big right leg if he did a lot of fencing). Regency gentlemen might frequent Gentleman Jackson’s, but they would not find a Nautilus there, nor keep a Bowflex handcrafted by Hepplewhite in their study.

And here’s an example of a guy with great legs and the full monty as shown in a nude study of 1816–yes, he carries a big stick, a rope, sword, something, who cares, but this is not that sort of blog, thank you very much. But to me the most interesting thing (honestly) about this study is the position of his arm, strategically placed to cover the flab, something I’m quite familiar with. I also suspect he’s a working boy (no, not that sort of working boy–go wash your mouth out with soap!)–see how tanned his hands are.

I’m not the first person to be puzzled by romance’s insistence on physical perfection for the hero and frequently, in contrast, physical imperfection in the heroine. It’s fantasy, but of the “oh, come on…” sort. If a hero’s looks/build are not as important as his other qualities–loyalty, kindness, sense of humor, perhaps even literacy, then why is so much emphasis placed on his appearance? Or is romance the only place a woman can admit to appreciating a man for more than his mind? And what do you really find sexy in a man?

Janet

Posted in Reading, Writing | Tagged | 9 Replies

Still “roughing it”

Updated on by

Hi, everyone! As if four days of power outage weren’t enough disruption, a few days later my main computer gave up the ghost. It’s the motherboard. For anyone that is not techie, this is Bad News. I need a new computer and there’ll be that annoying phase of getting everything working again. In the meantime I’m going to try to keep up with the Riskies (more or less) via the kind offices of the local public library.

Things could be worse, of course. My writing resides on an old laptop that is perfectly functional for word processing but is so old it’s not compatible with what my Information Services Dept (also known as dear husband) would need to do to connect it to the Internet.

It’s not really that primitive. It is annoying to have to go to the weather channel or newspaper rather than get onto weather.com. When I was missing an ingredient in my usual marinade for tuna steaks, I couldn’t go on foodtv.com to find an alternate recipe. I had to wing it. Well, that’s what the Regency folk would have to do. (For weather, I guess they’d ask some elderly curmudgeon of a gardener or countryman how his bones felt.)

The tough thing is the isolation when one is used to going online for email and blogging several times a day. As I am writing this my 1-hour time limit on this computer is ticking away. I’m not used to that! But think about it. Regency ladies might visit daily with local friends and relatives, and I imagine some did, but they also wrote lots and lots of letters.

Enough whining. I am trying to see some blessings in this. This week is the first of the three weeks this summer my kids are at day camps, and so far it’s been a productive one writing-wise. I can’t make excuses to go “look something up” on the Internet or compulsively check email and/or the blog. For a while, I’m free of hearing market news, etc…, that could raise those hideous inner writing demons that make me doubt whether what I’m writing is marketable this instant.

Still, I seem to be an web junkie. Withdrawal has me just a tad jittery. How about you? Anybody else go through web withdrawal? How do you cope?

Elena, hands shaking a bit as she types this post

LADY DEARING’S MASQUERADE
Romantic Times Reviewers’ Choice for Best Regency Romance of 2005
http://www.elenagreene.com/

Posted in Rant | Tagged | 7 Replies

Lavenham, Suffolk

Updated on by

As you might have guessed, I have figured out how to upload pictures from my new digital camera to the computer. Here are some pics from my recent trip to England — houses in Lavenham, Suffolk. I love the colors!!! I’ve never been a fan of the greenish-brown brick that so many English houses have, so I just adore all the colors in Suffolk.

And then the half timbering — there’s SO much in Lavenham that it’s amazing. It’s really like going back in time — except for all the cars, of course. 🙂 Though to be correct, I should mention that during my trip in Lavenham I learned that “half-timbered” is not the general term for these buildings — actually, “half-timbered” refers to the buildings in which the timbers are so wide that half of each wall is wood. (So most of the buildings people refer to as “half-timbered” aren’t. Perhaps they’re quarter-timbered? 32 percent timbered? 0.2119 timbered?)

Ahem. Sorry about that.

During the Middle Ages, Lavenham was a prosperous wool town. The wealthy merchants built these houses to live in — these were prestigious homes back then, and those with the most wood were the most admired. Even Queen Elizabeth visited Lavenham in 1578, bringing her whole court. (Wouldn’t that be nice, having folks like that drop in on you, expecting you to feed them all at your own great expense?)

By the end of the century, though, the wool trade in Lavenham started to decline (perhaps Elizabeth’s court ate too much?) Eventually, Lavenham turned into a quiet little byway, no longer important in the economy of the nation, or even the county. This meant that instead of tearing down all these beautiful timbered buildings to put up factories and more modern dwellings, most folks didn’t have the money for serious improvements or modernizations — so Lavenham is almost untouched. There are over three hundred buildings in Lavenham which have been listed as being of historical or architectural significance.

So: which of these would you want to be your house, or your Regency heroine’s house? (During the Georgian period, many of these houses were covered with brick — but our heroines, of course, can live in pink houses if we want.)

Pink, orange, red, yellow, beige, white — what color would you paint your house? Would you have white-ish timbers, as in the bottom photo here (which is apparently how they originally did them), or would you paint or stain them black or brown? Or would Lavenham just be too colorful a town for you?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Cara
Cara King — www.caraking.com
MY LADY GAMESTER — Booksellers’ Best Finalist for Best Regency of 2005!

Posted in Research | Tagged , , , | 14 Replies