Back to Top

Monthly Archives: January 2008

Elena blogged about the Cassie Edwards situation earlier this week; the whole kerfuffle came to light because of the internet: The Smart Bitches discussed their opinion of Ms. Edwards’ body of work, someone wondered just why it was the way it was, they did some googling, and voila, accusations of plagiarism ensue. It seems quite clear that it would not have happened without the internet. Who would have found those old books and compared them if it meant hours and hours in dusty libraries?

Your opinion of what Ms. Edwards may or may not have done aside, I think this situation, this possibility, is a good thing–transparency of information is fabulous, whether I’m searching for a butternut squash recipe, or want to see 1814 walking gowns, or a Biblical quote for my vicar’s daughter to spout during an argument with the hero.

The internet is also an incredible word-of-mouth vessel. For example, a blog-friend, Kristie, has been on a Crusade to get people to watch the BBC version of Elizabeth Gaskell‘s North & South. I had heard of it from an offline writing friend, but hadn’t gotten around to watching it, especially since my local library didn’t have it. Thanks to Kristie, who lit a fire under my posterior, I got it from the New York Public Library and watched it this week.

I have to say, thank goodness for the internet. I wouldn’t have known about the splendor of North & South, and the compellingly dark charisma of the hero, played by Richard Armitage, without it. Any fan of romance, and history, and alpha-sexy Mr. Broody-Pants-type heroes should try to see it.

In other ‘What has the Internet Done For Me?’ testify stories, my husband and I are renovating a house right now (fingers crossed: March 1), and we’ve done TONS of research on the web: Paints, stoves, refrigerators, lighting, building codes, etc. Would we even have a clue about anything without it? Unlikely. Not unless we wanted to spend tons of money on reference books or loads of hours in that same dusty libraries.

I find recommendations for books, food, movies, foxy guys, connect with friends, meet new friends (hi, Kristie! hi, Cindy!), introduce myself and my writing to potential readers, and have made some lasting connections that have escalated beyond the keyboard (hi, Myretta! hi, Tracy!).

And, of course, without the Internet we wouldn’t all be gathered here, sharing a love of Regency romances.

What do you love most about the web?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 19 Replies

One of our best-known newspapers wants to do a story for St. Valentine’s Day on romance writers’ bedrooms. Now it is for the Home section, but even so…read the whole entertaining mess at Smart Bitches.

Why do romance writers (and by implication their readers) suffer so in the media? Why are these stereotypes still around? Can we really keep blaming this pink old lady and her dogs? [insert mental pic of Barbara Cartland and her Pekinese here, because Blogger will not let me do the real thing. Thanks]

Here’s my theory. It’s the cult of the storyteller. This is why I find the Cassie Edwards/plagiarism case is so richly ironic. It didn’t matter that Ms. Edwards’s style left something to be desired (to put it mildly) because she was a storyteller. She could spin a tale, tell a story–actually that was debatable–but a lot of people thought so. Somewhere, somehow, a divide developed between those who cared about words and language and those who thought the story mattered the most, when in fact one carries the other.

And now suddenly the words do matter in romance. Unfortunately, they matter because the words in question belonged to someone else.

[mentally insert a fab fairy story illustration here.] The honorable, pre-literate craft of the storyteller relies on the linking catch-phrases–

a year and a day
once upon a time
as I walked out one midsummer morning

they lived happily ever after–

that blend the familiar to the new and unexpected. The mass-market storyteller is allowed, if not encouraged by the industry, to rely on a certain amount of repetition and same-ness; but because storytelling is not a special gather round the fire and eat some more of the mammoth Ug caught occasion, that may result in cliche, staleness, sameness.

So what does this have to do with the lady in pink with the fluffy dogs and diamonds? Why doesn’t romance get respect? It’s not because romance writers are storytellers vs. wordsmiths, or whatever terms you want to use, it’s that romance keeps the divide wide and deep by its insistence that the story is the most important thing, and the only important thing. It is in fact rather like this post where I can’t put the pix in because Blogger is having a bad hair day or something. You know they should be there but they’re not. We know that romance is such a huge market that you can have all sorts of romances and all sorts of writing, but sadly the cliches about the genre and its creators prevail.

It’s a pity it took a drastic case of plagiarism for us to be reminded that the words are important too.

Like many writers, I’ve been following the recent news about Cassie Edwards, historical romance author whose works contain many passages that are strikingly similar to those in various published works. The list includes but is not limited to nonfiction books about Native Americans, an article about black-footed ferrets in Defenders of Wildlife magazine and the 1930 Pulitzer Prize winning novel, Laughing Boy by Oliver La Farge. You can read a summary of the story at The New York Times or read in detail at Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books, the blog which originally identified the issue.

I don’t want to discuss the specifics of this case or whether these examples constitute plagiarism. You can read the side by side excerpts for yourself at Smart Bitches and join in the discussion there. (You can also read about the authors of Edwards’s sources at Dear Author.)

What I’d like to talk about here at the Riskies are some of the issues raised during the ensuing discussion.

A number of people have made statements to the effect that if only Cassie Edwards had acknowledged her sources, everything would be OK. I think they are missing the point. As historical novelists we are supposed to do the research then weave the things we’ve learned into our stories through our characters’ POV and in our own author voices. IN OUR OWN WORDS.

Some bloggers are suggesting novelists should include footnotes and bibliographies. I actually agree with Signet’s statement that such things are not required in popular fiction the way they are in academic works. The point, again, is that in popular fiction we shouldn’t be copying anything. At most we might use a brief quote (attributed) to establish the tone at the beginning of a chapter, or have a character quote some period poetry or read a headline (again, this can be attributed right within the text).

Footnotes in romance? I don’t know how well it works but I can’t help thinking it would yank me as a reader right out of the story. I can’t help picturing a sexy scene in which the hero is removing the heroine’s corset, with a footnote to the effect that “description of heroine’s undergarments based on THE HISTORY OF UNDERCLOTHES by C. Willet and Phillis Cunnington”. 🙂

Actually, I’ve seen a footnote in a romance, just once. A Loretta Chase book had a footnote cross-referencing another of her books in the same series. I don’t doubt it was some marketing person’s idea. Loretta Chase writes so well I can’t imagine her wanting to distract the reader with such a thing.

I’ve also heard that Susan Johnson uses footnotes for historical information in her novels. I haven’t read any of her work so I can’t comment on how well those footnotes would work for me. Some of her fans say they enjoy them.

History Geek that I am, I do love Author’s Notes that clarify which parts of a book are based on historical fact and list sources for further reading. I wrote such an Author’s Note in LADY DEARING’S MASQUERADE, listing CORAM’S CHILDREN by Ruth K. McClure as my source for details of London’s Foundling Hospital. For my current mess-in-progress, I’m likely to credit some of my sources for the Napoleonic Wars and the history of ballooning.

But to list every reference I use to create my Regencies? Nah. I’ve read so many books on the Regency, many of which cover similar ground, that by now I couldn’t say whether I gleaned well-known facts about the Regency from Carolly Erickson’s OUR TEMPTESTUOUS DAY or THE AGE OF ELEGANCE by Sir Arthur Bryant or a number of other histories of the period.

Thinking about it further, I do give credit to all my references in one way. Within the Beau Monde (RWA’s Regency chapter) we share an annotated bibliography called the Regency Realm. By now it has over 1000 entries for books, magazines and other sources we all use to create our stories. I know this because I’m the one who maintains it.

Anyway, do you think novelists have an obligation to credit all their sources and how? What do you think of the idea of footnotes in fiction? Bibliographies? Author’s Notes?

And before we start discussing this, a gentle caution that we keep the discussion polite. On other blogs discussion has occasionally crossed the line into personal attacks on individuals involved. I know most (probably all) of us know better but just had to say it anyway.

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 16 Replies

Welcome to a special meeting of Risky Regencies’ Jane Austen Movie Club!

Today we’re discussing the newest adaptation of Persuasion, which aired in the US this past Sunday on PBS, and in the UK last year.

First, here’s some Knowledge to Impress your Friends With: contrary to what some people assume, this Persuasion is not a BBC production. The upcoming new Sense and Sensibility is BBC, but the other three new adaptations (Persuasion, Northanger Abbey, and Mansfield Park) are ITV.

Or actually, to be quite correct: this Persuasion was produced by Clerkenwell Films and WGBH, and distributed by ITV and PBS. 🙂

Now that that sticky mess is out of the way, please turn off your cell phones and pagers, place your tray tables in their upright position, and tell us what you thought of the new Persuasion!

(By the way, here’s an interview with Sally Hawkins, the new Anne Elliot. A rather ordinary interview, in my opinion, but see what you think.)

To aid discussion, here’s a cast list and some of the other major credits. As I love noticing folks who’ve worked on other historical adaptations, I’ve put some “you’ve seen him in this” tidbits in purple.

Director: Adrian Shergold

Screenplay: Simon Burke

Burke’s screenwriting credits include the 1997 miniseries of Tom Jones and some of the Cadfael series.

CAST:

Sally Hawkins — Anne Elliot

Hawkins played Mary Shelley in the 2003 TV Byron which starred Jonny Lee Miller.

Anthony Head — Sir Walter Elliot

Julia Davis — Elizabeth Elliot

Amanda Hale — Mary Musgrove

Rupert Penry-Jones — Captain Wentworth

Penry-Jones played St John Rivers in the Samantha Morton/Ciaran Hinds Jane Eyre.

Alice Krige — Lady Russell

Krige played Mary Shelley in 1988’s Haunted Summer, and the beautiful marquesa in Sharpe’s Honour.

Michael Fenton Stevens — Mr. Shepherd

Mary Stockley — Mrs. Clay

Peter Wight — Admiral Croft

Wight played Mr. Gardiner in the 2005 (Keira Knightley) Pride and Prejudice.

Marion Bailey — Mrs. Croft

Jennifer Higham — Louisa Musgrove

Rosamund Stephen — Henrietta Musgrove

Stephen played Miss de Bourgh in the 2005 Pride and Prejudice.

Stella Gonet — Mrs. Musgrove

Sam Hazeldine — Charles Musgrove

Nicholas Farrell — Mr. Musgrove

Farrell played Fenner in Sharpe’s Regiment, Edmund Bertram in the 1983 BBC Mansfield Park, and Henry Thornton in Amazing Grace.

Joseph Mawle — Captain Harville

Finlay Robertson — James Benwick

Tobias Menzies — William Elliot

Maisie Dimbleby — Mrs. Smith

Sarah Buckland — Nurse Rooke

So, what did you think???

All opinions welcome! (Though do be polite!)

And be sure to stop by here on the next two Tuesdays, when we’ll be discussing the new Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park!

Cara
Cara King, who reads and writes books, and would sleep on them too if she were a cat

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 32 Replies