This past weekend I had the chance to co-lead a writing workshop for some aspiring writers aged 10-12. I had a great time doing it and what a fun group it was!

But one thing that struck me was how each of the girls admitted to having been at times ridiculed or somehow labeled by peers at school and elsewhere. Hippy, goth, nerd, brainy freak: these were some of the assorted terms used to brand them as different, and not in a good way. Some of them reported teachers who must have felt threatened by the differences. One girl was told she couldn’t have spiders and cats talking in a story–um, Charlotte’s Web, anyone????

The co-leader of the workshop and I could recalled similar incidents from our own youths. The girls seemed happy to know they were not alone and not crazy (or at least crazy in a good way). 🙂 Afterwards I reflected that while my writer friends and I have, by and large, found our places in various communities as adults, many of us were somehow “different” as children. These differences were not always appreciated by either our peers or our teachers. But while painful memories can block us, they can sometimes slingshot us into the work and provide source material. It’s no wonder books and films are full of characters trying to cope with being different.

In romance we see a lot of “misfit” types: bastards (whether or not they turn out to be the Lost Heir), heroes with shady pasts, heroines who are hoydens or bluestockings, characters with physical imperfections or even disabilities. I love ’em all, as long as they are unique creations and not imitations of someone else’s misfit character.

Not all heroes and heroines are misfits, of course. Sometimes they get together because of a threat is to the community they’re both part of, or they belong to different communities. Interesting things also happen when one fits in better than the other.

Anyway, here are just a tiny few of my favorite misfits from historical romance:

• Phoebe in Georgette Heyer’s SYLVESTER: she likes horses better than most people, acts like a hoyden and writes a novel featuring the hero as a villain. Her foil, Sylvester, on the other hand, is the perfect duke, obviously welcomed everywhere.
• Lady Alys Weston from Mary Jo Putney’s THE RAKE AND THE REFORMER (a.k.a. THE RAKE). She’s a tall woman with mismatched eyes, thinks of herself as a “great horse” and holds the unusual position of estate manager. The hero, Reggie, is an alcoholic trying to save himself. It’s ironic to me that while some characters thought he took his drinking too far, it was a very socially acceptable vice. Reggie isn’t really the one who doesn’t fit in.
• The hero and heroine of Loretta Chase’s MR IMPOSSIBLE are both misfits after a fashion. Rupert is a ne’er-do-well younger son who doesn’t know what he wants to be when he grows up. Daphne is a scholar with a fascination with Egypt and ancient languages.

Having been the nerdy kid with cat’s eye glasses and her nose in a book, I know exactly why I relate to misfits. What I do wonder about is why they are so very popular. Are there really that many misfits who are readers? Or are there “normal” people out there who secretly relate to the misfit?

So why do you think misfits are so popular in fiction and on screen? Do you have any personal favorites?

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

When I was a kid, I loved superheroes. My brother and I would go to my mom and have her pin towels around our necks, and then we’d fly around the backyard and fight bad guys.

At first, we thought all superheroes could fly, and that the cape was the device which made this possible. (Yes, I can hear Edna from “The Incredibles” scoffing at me!)

When we were old enough to actually read comic books, we learned that there were many kinds of superheroes, with many kinds of powers.

Some of these, if you think about it, couldn’t have been all that useful. Okay, so “Triplicate Girl” could split into three versions of herself — but so what? Sure, she, could date three guys at once, but how could she save the world?

And some heroes weren’t even “super”, but had talents and gadgets — like Batman, and Green Arrow, and Black Canary.

On the other hand, some heroes were so powerful — Superman, Captain Marvel, The Green Lantern, Wonder Woman — that I imagine it was hard for the writers not to have them win on page 2.

And so, you say — what does all this have to do with the Regency?

Does it ever seem to you like there are Regency superheroes? The dandy who never attracts lint, the rake who always knows how to please a lady (any lady), the gorgon who has memorized the family trees of everyone in Europe?

So — if you were creating a Regency superhero (or, even better, a whole group of superheroes with different powers, like the X-Men and their foes), who would you create? What would their powers be?

And what would their costumes and names be?

All responses welcome!

Cara
Cara King, author of MY LADY GAMESTER
starring Super Atalanta and her sidekick Tom

This cover discussion begun by our Janet Mullany on Jan 25 is still intriguing me! I know that what makes a good cover is all really personal preference, but I thought it would be fun to continue the discussion

My position is that a handsome man on a romance cover is going to attract more attention than a cover without a handsome man, even if that cover has beautiful flowers on it.

Now, the handsome man does not have to be without half or all his clothes–those covers, I agree can be embarrassing. (So I guess I’m not really fond of “mantitty” covers, as Janet so cleverly called them), but if I am browsing the romance shelves, not in the market for any specific book, the books I’m going to pick up first are the ones with a handsome man on the cover.

This is why I LOVED my cover for A Reputable Rake. I could not have asked for a better cover, by far my favorite. The Rake is just so handsome and his expression perfectly represents the hero of the book.

My Mills & Boon cover for The Mysterious Miss M comes in a close second, because it had a handsome man in a very romantic pose. As my first book cover ever, I was over the moon about this cover and I still love it.

Now I prefer both of these covers to my cover of Innocence and Impropriety, arriving in bookstores March 2007. This cover has both the handsome man and the romantic pose, but it is a tad too sweet for me, and the book is not quite that sweet. Still, I like this cover. I love the setting of Covent Garden in the background. If it were on the shelf right next to A Reputable Rake, I’d bet A Reputable Rake would be picked up first.

I browsed the All About Romance Cover contest archives for examples. Take a look at these two beautiful Jo Beverley covers (the double image means they are “step back” covers).

They are both wonderful covers, but which would I pick up first? The one with that very handsome man.

My cover for The Wagering Widow was nice because it was provokative and hinted at that handsome man by showing his hand. The black and white image is what you would see just inside the cover, so there was a handsome man and the romantic pose if you opened the book.

The same image appeared on Louise Allen’s Jan 2007 Mills & Boon, Not Quite a Lady.

I cannot be objective, though. I don’t know which I would pick up first, if they were side by side, Not Quite a Lady, with its handsome man in a romantic pose, or the provokative, A Wagering Widow?

What do you all think?
Does a handsome man on the cover influence whether you will pick it up, at least to read the back cover copy?

Do you want to vote for a favorite cover? Cover Cafe has a contest, formerly sponsored by All About Romance!

Speaking of handsome men on romance covers, in March, the cover model for The Wagering Widow and Not Quite a Lady, Richard Cerqueira, will be doing a guest interview with Risky Regencies. So let me know if there is anything you would like me to ask Richard about what it is like in a romance cover shoot.

Cheers!
Diane

I meant to do this earlier in the day. Megan could not do the blog today so I volunteered but then I spent the day FINALLY finishing the revisions to The Vanishing Viscountess.

I promised my system for naming characters.

The Regency period was a more formal time than nowadays when everyone from salesclerks to telemarketers want to use your first name. First names were rarely used in the Regency era, except among family or schoolmates. Even so, a little boy with a title would be called by his title, even if he was a mere toddler. Think of it, in Pride & Prejudice no one ever called Darcy Fitzwilliam! and Mr. and Mrs. Bennet addressed themselves as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet.

I’ve tried to adapt to this style in my books, so I pay attention first to title names and surnames. I make sure my male characters have title names or surnames that will sound comfortable as what we modern folk would think of as given names. So in my March book, Innocence & Impropriety, the hero is Jameson Flynn, but he is “Flynn” throughout the book. His employer is the Marquess of Tannerton or “Tanner” to everyone. (Tanner is the hero of The Vanishing Viscountess)

I often create title names by using The Incomplete Peerage . But I mix up the title names, taking the stem from one of them and putting on a different ending, so “Cornwall” may become “Cornworth.” Then I google “Lord Cornworth” to make certain there isn’t a real one.

My heroines are much more apt to get a first name. Have you noticed how my heroine names mostly start with “M”? My daughter’s name starts with M.

For first names I go to a baby naming site and look up English or Scottish or Irish or Welsh first names, whatever I need. Or I go to a census of the time period and see what names are there. I do this for surnames as well.

I try not to repeat a letter of the alphabet in the book, so if the hero is Tanner, then his butler would not be Turner.

That’s it. That’s my naming style. And if that doesn’t work, I just take a name from a reader–Right Mallory? Mallory Pickerloy is my heroine in The Vanishing Viscountess.

Diane