Back to Top

Monthly Archives: August 2007

Today, August 16, is the anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre of 1816 that Diane mentioned on her Monday post, when a peaceful meeting of people seeking reform of the Parliamentary system were attacked by the military, leaving eleven dead and over five hundred wounded.

Organized by the Manchester Patriotic Union Society, a large crowd of millworkers from all over Lancashire gathered in St. Peters Field, Manchester that day–anywhere between 30,000 and 153,00, depending on which source you believe–to hear Henry “Orator” Hunt and others speak. It was apparently a glorious summer day and there was a holiday atmosphere, with people wearing their Sunday best.

Local magistrates, however, were convinced the meeting would become a riot, and had arranged for troop to stand by. They sent in the local militia, the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry, who attacked the cart that formed the speakers’ platform. The 15th Hussars were then sent in to “rescue” the Yeomanry and although at first people tried to stand their ground by linking hands, they were cut down and forced to flee–many were hurt by being trampled in the panic. The speakers and newspaper reporters were arrested and imprisoned.

The woman in the white dress on the platform is thought to be Mary Hildes, a passionate radical who formed the Manchester Female Reform Group, and was one of the main speakers at Peterloo. She was also an early proponent of birth control and when she attempted to distribute books on the subject she was accused in the local press of selling pornography. The women radicals didn’t campaign, though, for female suffrage, but supported the male radical cause. They weren’t taken seriously by the press (of course), and not even by other women. As The Times reported that day:

A group of women of Manchester, attracted by the crowd, came to the corner of the street where we had taken our post. They viewed the Oldham Female Reformers for some time with a look in which compassion and disgust was equally blended, and at last burst out into an indignant exclamation–“Go home to your families, and leave sike-like as these to your husbands and sons, who better understand them.”

Many were outraged by the massacre, including local mill owners who witnessed it. James Wroe of the Manchester Observer was probably the first to call the massacre “Peterloo,” in ironic reference to Waterloo. The government supported the action of the troops, and by the end of the year had passed the infamous Six Acts that suppressed freedom of speech and of the press and made radical gatherings illegal. There wasn’t a public enquiry into Peterloo until 1820. It wasn’t until 1832 that the Reform Bill corrected some of the worst injustices of the electoral system and in 1918 all men, and women over 30, were given the vote.

So what was the situation before 1832? About one in ten men could vote, because the right to vote was tied in to income and property and the areas represented ignored population shifts. Over sixty “Rotten Boroughs,” scarcely populated areas, or “Pocket Boroughs,” shoo-ins for local landowners were represented, but the huge industrial towns like Manchester were barely represented at all. Also voting was not done by ballot, so the few who could vote could easily be coerced or bribed. Middlemarch by George Eliot is set in this period.

We don’t often read or write about the “other side” of the Regency since so many books deal with the fluffier, lighter side of the ton, a sort of Regencyland we’ve created. Would you like to see more history or do you prefer to keep the fantasy intact?

Sign up for our daring radical newsletter at riskies@yahoo.com. All contests all the time (or at least for the moment) at www.janetmullany.com and www.janelockwood.com.

Janet reminded me that it was Napoleon’s birthday today. My first reaction was not to blog about Napoleon because I didn’t have time for research not related to mess-in-progress and most of what I know about him comes from my reading about the English. The ones who called him the Corsican monster and lived with a not unfounded fear of invasion (despite the cartoon at left depicting an imaginary balloon-and-Chunnel attack).

My one more objective source on Napoleon is The Age of Napoleon, by J. Christopher Herold. It’s a good higher level history of the period, yet I still don’t see much to admire in Napoleon himself. There’s a line in the concluding chapter: “his historical role was that of an unconscious tool of destruction, clearing the way for a modern age that little resembled the age he thought he was creating”. I suspect Herold meant clearing the way politically but my first reaction was: Were there just too many able-bodied young men in England and Europe standing in the way of progress? When I think about the mothers, wives, sisters and sweethearts who lost their loved ones I just can’t see any glory in it.

I used to not get the whole world domination thing. Too Pinky and the Brain for me. More recently I’ve thought about it in light of controlling people I know and I’ve realized the impulse comes from fear. People who need to dominate every situation are afraid that if they’re not on top A) everyone will attack them and/or B) that nothing can get done right. It’s pretty delusional and again I see no glory in it.

So what do you think? Anything to say in Boney’s defense? Do you find villains intent on domination of some world, greater or lesser, over the top or believable?

And in case the subject of Napoleon doesn’t fire you up, I have to mention that I just saw Becoming Jane and (don’t eat me!) enjoyed it. Of course I did not take it as serious biography but thought it worked well as a story in itself.

It occurred to me that if one set out to make a movie of Jane’s life, the known facts add up to an interesting but not a dramatic story. There’s much we don’t know. Cassandra destroyed a portion of her letters and I can’t help suspecting they held more insights into Jane’s inner life than we will ever have. I’m not saying that the events depicted in the movie really could have happened, only that I can understand why the creators of Becoming Jane chose to embroider in the gray areas. If the result will cause some of those teenaged girls I saw in the theatre to go out and read even one of her books, that can’t be a bad thing.

So my apologies for this long post and I look forward to hearing what you all think!

Elena
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 9 Replies

I am delighted to announce that MY LADY GAMESTER will be translated into German — and so I will join the other Riskies as one of the many foreign authors published by German romance publisher Cora. (It’s old hat for a lot of authors, but it’s a first for me, so I’m excited!)

So now I’m wondering….what will they call it? To educate myself, I checked out how Cora has changed the titles of some other Regencies. (I have had Todd and his dictionaries translate the German titles for us, to the best of his abilities, but he doesn’t vouch for their correctness. If anyone spots an error, please mention it!)

ANNE ASHLEY:

Betrayed and Betrothed

becomes

A Gentleman Bets and Wins! (Ein Gentleman Wagt — Und Gewinnt!)

And, yes, the exclamation point is in the German title — it wasn’t added by me!

I think the English title here is sharp — I love it — but I have to admit, the German title is fun.

LOUISE ALLEN:

The Marriage Debt

becomes

My Beloved Angel (Mein Geliebter Engel)

I think “The Marriage Debt” is an intriguing title, whereas “My Beloved Angel” seems a tad overdone to me… What do you think?

KATHRYN KIRKWOOD:

A Match for Melissa

becomes

Only a Long Waltz? (Nur Einen Walzer Lang?)

I think the English title is fine here, but the German title is really interesting, at least rendered in English! I’m guessing it means something like “Was it love…or was it only a long waltz?” 🙂

SUSANNAH CARLETON:

Twin Peril

becomes

With the Eye of Love (Mit Den Augen Der Liebe)

I’ve always liked the title “Twin Peril” — it’s fun, it’s unusual, and it actually tells you something about the book. “With the Eye of Love,” on the other hand? Not so much. (If a title can be used for any romance ever written, how can it not be boring?)

KATHLEEN BALDWIN:

Cut From the Same Cloth

becomes

Enchanting Lady Elizabeth (Zauberhafte Lady Elizabeth)

Here too, the English title is less generic than the German. Not that there’s anything particularly wrong with “Enchanting Lady Elizabeth” — but it doesn’t do anything. “Cut From the Same Cloth,” on the other hand, is unusual enough to make me curious.

MADELEINE CONWAY:

Rosamund’s Revenge

becomes

Secret Love Letters (Geheime Liebesbriefe)

To me, “Rosamund’s Revenge” has more oomph, but “Secret Love Letters” is definitely interesting. (I presume it sounds a little more poetic in German.)

So…what do you think? Which titles do you prefer in the original, and which in the German?

And the question of the day: what do you think they’ll call MY LADY GAMESTER? (Bizarre or random guesses heartily welcomed!)

Cara
Cara King, author of MY LADY GAMESTER (not to be confused with My Lady Hamster)


Huge Announcement: Pomroy’s Story (What I affectionately call the book, because my editor and I –and my best title supplier, Julie Halperson–have been unable to come up with a title) is done!

Some Titles that have been in consideration:

The Scandal Season
An Illicit Liaison (guaranteed to be misspelled)
A Proper Scandal
One Notorious Night
An Innocent Scandal
The Notorious Lady W (akin to The Mysterious Miss M!!)
A Wanton Woman

So far I like Pomroy’s Story the best.

I’m not going to say too much about this story yet. Too much of it is tied to the next book, The Vanishing Viscountess (Hmmm. New title idea: The Licentious Lady….) , but I know my title examples will have you guessing!

I finished the book at about 6:00 am this morning, which is why my blog is coming in a little late and why my title ideas are deteriorating. It was due July 31 and I hate to be late.

The harder I chased the deadline, the worse it got. With about one week to go to my deadline, I discovered that I had set the end of the book to take place during the Season of 1820 (Hence the title idea The Scandal Season). One problem. Not only did Prince Edward Augustus, the father of Queen Victoria, die that January, but a few days later, the mad king himself, George III, died, and the Prince Regent was very ill. My characters were supposed to enter a lively social season that spring? I didn’t think so. I went back to the beginning of the book and rearranged things to fit a new time frame.

Luckily (although not lucky for the poor victims), the Peterloo Massacre happened the previous August, making that autumn an important time for Parliament. The Peterloo Massacre was an event that took place in Manchester, August 1819. A crowd of people gathered in St. Peter’s Field to listen to the great orator, Henry Hunt, speak against the Corn Laws and other social issues. The city officials became worried about the huge numbers and called in the Cavalry, who (drunk, they say) rode through the crowd swinging their sabres. Eleven were killed and hundreds wounded. That autumn, in fear that there would be other such protest demonstrations, Parliament passed laws restricting public gatherings and suppressing radical newspapers.

I figured London that autumn would be pretty busy, making it what Heyer called “The Little Season.” It would be credible that my characters interacted socially in this Little Season.

It was now September, 1819, in the book. I decided to send my characters to the theatre, although I did not know if the London theatres were dark or not in September. An internet search found a citation that a Mr. Webb performed at King’s Theatre within days of the day I needed. That was all I needed. I wrote the scene, pulling out the research books I’d purchased when I wrote Innocence and Impropriety, which featured King’s Theatre and gave more authentic detail.

Something nagged at me, though. King’s Theatre did opera and Mr. Webb was an Irish humorist and vocalist. I did more digging and discovered that Mr. Webb had performed in the King’s Theatre in Richmond, a few miles outside London.

I had to rewrite the scene. I’d spent a whole day researching and writing the original scene. Sigh!

These are just a few examples of the bumps in the road that made writing this book more…ah…turbulent than I would have desired. From now on, I vow I will manage my time more efficiently and meet my deadlines with enough time to spare for reading over the book and polishing it to a fine shine.

I’ll let you all hold me to my vow.

What research roadblocks have you discovered in trying to finish your books? Surely I am not the only one….

I realize you have no idea what the book is about, but do you have any title ideas?

Next Monday! A report of my Williamsburg, VA/Jamestown vacation with Amanda, with special appearances by fellow Harlequin Historical authors, Deb Marlowe and Michelle Willingham.

One of the set-backs during the writing of this book was all the work that went into my new website. Please take a look and tell me it was worth it!

August always feels like the doldrums of the year to me. I wish I could be like the French, and spend the whole month at the beach or the mountains. The weather is hot (over 100 degrees for the past week, and likely to stay so for the rest of the month!), nothing much gets done at work and yet everyone is strangely cranky. Workplace Sweetie is gone for a couple of weeks. I’m having a hard time concentrating in reading or writing, or doing anything besides watching dumb summer TV and drinking gallons of iced tea. If it wasn’t for Anthony Bourdain’s hilarious stint guest-judging on Top Chef, I would have nothing. It’s a good thing I’m going on vacation next week, visiting Risky Diane and taking in the colonial fun of Williamsburg! Shopping for tricorne hats is just what I need to escape the August blahs.
Luckily, I haven’t spent all my time watching America’s Got Very Mediocre Talent! I got the Official word I’ll be doing 4 more books for Harlequin. You can look for Nicolai’s story (still with no Official title!) in April ’08. And you can see a review of A Notorious Woman here. And I got to see Becoming Jane this morning!

I went in telling myself sternly, “This is not a story about the author Jane Austen who lived from 1775 to 1817. It is just a Regency romance with a heroine named Jane.” And that seemed to help. The movie did seem to have many elements in common with some modern Regency-set romances. So–I didn’t hate it. Neither did I love it. It was quite silly in many ways, and what is worse, was sometimes quite boring. But I enjoyed some of the costumes; most of the acting (Anne Hathaway was better than I expected, though Anna Maxwell Martin, who was so good in the recent Bleak House, was mostly wasted as Cassandra); James McAvoy with his shirt off. And those boots he wore. I got to see a preview for Elizabeth: The Golden Age–Clive Owen, excellent choice to play Walter Raleigh. And the theater was air conditioned, and I got to eat a packet of Sour Patch Kids. Maybe silliness was what I needed today.

How do you pull yourself out of summer laziness? Any advice for me? And what’s your favorite movie snack? (Told you I was feeling silly today…)