Back to Top

Monthly Archives: September 2008

One of the challenges of writing in the Regency era is getting the titles correct, or more specifically the terms of address. What were people called in the early nineteenth century? It is so confusing. When is our hero Lord Lastname and when is he Lord Firstname? When would he be simply called by his first name? What about his wife? His children? And what are the differences with what we are used to today?

Here is a website that tells it all: Correct Forms of Address

Bookmark this site, because it really has all the answers to any question you might have about titles and names.

The problem is, do readers, especially North American readers, understand or care about titles? Or is being correct just be too darn confusing?

Consider my hero in Scandalizing the Ton. His given name is Adrian Pomroy and in Innocence & Impropriety and The Vanishing Viscountess, Tanner, his friend from childhood, calls him “Pomroy.” In Scandalizing the Ton, however, Adrian’s father has just inherited a title from an uncle and becomes the Earl of Varcourt. Adrian is given his father’s lesser title, Viscount Cavanley, but it is a courtesy title, meaning he’s not really a viscount; he can’t sit in the House of Lords like a viscount. The real title still belongs to his father as well as his father’s new title.

Aren’t all these names confusing? Adrian Pomroy is Viscount Cavanley by courtesy and his father is Earl of Varcourt. Adrian. Pomroy. Cavanley. Varcourt. Four names connected to one person.

Wait, though, there is more to confuse.

When his father was merely a viscount, Adrian would have been called Mr. Pomroy, but when his father becomes an earl, Adrian is now Lord Cavanley. The friends who called him Pomroy will now call him Cavanley. (Except Tanner. Tanner still calls him Pomroy).

In the Regency, though, no one probably would have called him Adrian. First names were rarely used except by close family or school friends. Even spouses typically did not use first names.

In Scandalizing the Ton, my heroine, Lydia, does use Adrian’s first name soon after their meeting. Why would I deliberately choose to be incorrect?

I wanted to signal an intimacy between Lydia and Adrian and I used the terms of address to do that. It will make sense to North American readers, I think, but it really is not the way it would have been.

So my question is, what do you prefer? Accuracy or something that feels more familiar?

In the Historicals you’ve read, have you spotted mistakes in titles that bother you? Have you found the use of titles confusing? Does any of this matter to you?

This is one of those issues that I really don’t know if it matters to anyone but me!

Hey, I have a book video! Check it out on my website. Scandalizing the Ton is available now from eHarlequin and will be in bookstores in October.

I’m still working on the Unleash Your Story challenge to raise money for Cystic Fibrosis. Please consider making a small donation here.

Today we welcome Marsha Altman, whose book The Darcys and the Bingleys: A Tale of Two Gentlemen’s Marriages to Two Most Devoted Sisters was released this month.

Marsha, big congrats on the book and thanks for coming to visit today! Marsha is offering a signed copy of the book to a lucky winner–your comment or question enters you in the drawing.

We’ve seen a lot of Austen sequels lately. What makes yours stand out?

Every author has their niche, the story they want to tell within the niche of Pride and Prejudice sequels. Some people want to speculate on the sex lives of the married Darcys – all well and good of it’s done well – some want to focus on marrying off the remaining cast, and one person writes cozy mysteries. I value uniqueness very much, which is why I’m attracted to the stories that haven’t been told yet. Georgiana’s gotten married in numerous sequels, Elizabeth and Darcy have a great marriage life but the kid is slow in coming – I wanted to do something about the Bingleys, and about the friendship of Darcy and Bingley.

Also my book has some fight scenes. I like swords. Also guns, wooden legs of chairs, candlesticks – whatever works.



How did you come to write this book?


It started as a short story meant to be between Darcy and Bingley about their pre-wedding jitters and expanded from there. Some people take offense to the idea that Darcy would be experienced upon entering his marriage, which is historically improbable (he is roughly 29 when he marries, depending on when his birthday occurs, which is never mentioned in the book). But Bingley, who’s more sweet and innocent, could be a virgin. So he goes to his best pal for awkward advice. I found the notion amusing. Everything that came after that was just more ideas I had. I told myself I would stop writing when I ran out of things to do with the characters or they died, and I haven’t had it in me to kill any of them yet.

How did you feel about taking on Jane Austen?


I think I could take her. I’m probably taller than her, and I have martial arts experience. On the other hand she was a good dancer and got plenty of exercise, and we’re both pretty sickly, so it might be an even match. I wouldn’t underestimate her.

Now for the serious answer, in terms of “taking on” the length and breadth of her work by attempting to continue it, I don’t worry about it because it simply can’t be done. I’m not one of the foremost novelists in the British language and I wouldn’t be even if I changed my citizenship. I’m trying to have fun with her characters. As to whether she would mine, Miss Austen has posthumously endured her nephew and extended family publishing all of her unfinished writing and personal letters for profit, numerous sequels and adaptations, books analyzing her personal life, and even movies about her starring actresses wearing heavy lipstick. So, if she’s been spinning in her grave, she’s probably tired by now and may well have gotten over it. That or she understands imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, if that phrase existed in the Regency period.

What sort of research did you do, and did you discover anything 
surprising?


I’m a historian by nature. It was my undergraduate degree and I almost went for a PhD in it but got fed up with graduate academia. Therefore I had some initial trouble navigating the Regency fiction waters. This a culture you’re far more familiar with than I am, as I’ve not read much Regency romance outside of Jane Austen and Austen fanfic, but the world as it is portrayed in Regency fiction and Regency romance in conventional, modern publishing seems to be a world contrived from actual history and some assumptions about history based on writers from the period, Austen being the main one. Some people don’t realize that Jane Austen wrote contemporary fiction; I’m writing historical fiction. They’re two different things. I can’t write the story I think she would have written. I can only write a story set in that period of history using characters that resemble hers. I decided to rely on historical accuracy over Regency writing traditions. While certainly not true of everything (especially “Risky” Regencies!), the Regency period is presented in fiction as this very sanitized, rule-bound world. This is the world Jane Austen wrote about. It doesn’t mean it was the world that actually existed during the Regency period.

Roger Sales wrote a very interesting book, Jane Austen and Representations of Regency England. In the 1995 edition he included a postscript about the BBC adaptation and what was altered to match people’s perceptions of what the Regency period was over what it actually was. Earlier in the book, he comments that when Jane Austen’s letters were first published, it was during the Victorian period, and they were edited. Not that there was anything scandalous in there, but references to mundane things like bedbugs and illness were removed for a Victorian audience, that wanted to see Jane Austen in the sanitized world of her fiction.

To do the things I really wanted to do in the story, especially the later half where there’s more drama and violence, I decided to take a more historical route, which means people getting shot and having gruesome surgeries and some people dying. I saw no reason to focus on the mechanics of sex – plenty of more competent romance writers have done that – but I didn’t feel a need to leave out some of the other un-polite parts of Polite Society. It was too limiting to do otherwise. The characters still act appropriately (most of the time), but they encounter the gritty parts of their world whether they like it or not. It’s not very “Austen-esque” but it was a decision on my part and I’ve stuck with it ever since.

You tell the story of two characters who aren’t wholly sympathetic– 
Bingley himself and his sister Caroline. How did your perceptions of 
them change?

First off, Bingley. Despite the fact that he was inspired by Simon Wood’s portrayal of him in the 2005 movie, where his lines were a bit dumber than the lines given to the BBC Bingley (Crispin Bonham-Carter), I had to give Bingley some intelligence, just not in the realm of social intercourse.

Bingley is a foil to Darcy. He’s comfortable in social situations but not a great wit; Darcy is uncomfortable before strangers but always has something intelligent to say. They make a great pair in terms of dialogue, and you could see how one would rely on the other for their perceived deficiencies. Eventually it becomes a very brotherly rivalry, and Bingley actually bests Darcy a few times, though largely at things beyond his control. His father was a brilliant businessman, so I gave Bingley a head for numbers and languages, which plays a bigger role in future books. But he remains lovable and affectionate Bingley, which is key to the Caroline story.

I wanted to work with Miss Bingley because it’s territory very few people have done and I don’t think in any published work. There’s a few scattered fanfics I can name, but mostly in sequels she’s either not there, still scheming, or outright psychotic. While all of Austen’s writing on her would lend itself to that, it was more challenging to do the opposite. Besides, why would she pursue Darcy after he married? She’s too calculating for that. What would she do with her time? She makes some bad decisions, but Bingley is good enough to know she’s in trouble and Darcy is good enough to know he should help. Portraying the Bingley siblings affectionately, after they’ve lived their whole lives together even after the marriage of the eldest sister, has been something I’ve enjoyed doing. I want to make people love these characters. I want to give them a chance to be redeemed.



How did your perceptions of Elizabeth and Darcy change? Are they 
still the ultimate, perfectly matched couple?


It’s a difficult act to make Darcy and Elizabeth partners in every sense of the word without betraying their essential characters. Elizabeth is too self-assured, Darcy is too distant and uneven. Their love transcends it, and they learn the lessons of Pride and Prejudice and don’t repeat them, but upon their marriage they have to learn to lean on each other when both are used to being very independent. I had no interest in writing a story where they fight for any extended period of time, but there are still subtle battles for dominance and understanding in the relationship. Most of it is expressed quickly or unexpressed but still present. In a marriage, as two couples move towards each other physically and emotionally, it’s a bit like a battle even if it isn’t one – there are advances and there are concessions, however minor, that cause the forming of a stable and lasting relationship. The foundation is there but it still takes work to build on it, and even when caught up in other plotlines, Darcy and Elizabeth are still working towards the ultimate companionship a true marriage can bring.

What’s next for you?


Several books in this series. They get increasingly dramatic – there are only so may wedding one-liners you can do – but I hope to maintain the undercurrent of humor to ease the burden of the challenges the characters face. There’s more on the Darcy family history that takes awhile to be fully revealed, the other characters get a bit caught up in some of the political things going on around them without being political themselves, and of course there’s kids. Lots of kids. I really need a good genealogy chart.

Also I write sci-fi, so I’ll probably get back to that when I’m done with the series.

How do you intend to end the series?

They all get eaten by dinosaurs.


From Hogarth‘s Gin Lane:

Drunk for a penny
Dead drunk for twopence

Clean straw for nothing

This weekend, my husband and assorted friends and I will be trotting onto a ferry to Block Island (off the coast of Rhode Island). The Ready For A Party Spouse suggested we bring cocktails onto the ferry, and since I am feeling slightly wistful about the end of summer, I suggested the most summeriest of cocktails, gin and Fresca (also one of the most white trashiest cocktails, I think, but that’s not why I asked for it).

Gin has a rich and storied history in the Regency; known as ‘blue ruin,’ gin became popular in England when the government allowed unlicensed gin production along with insisting on a heavy duty for imported spirits. According to Wikipedia, “by 1740 the production of gin had increased to six times that of beer, and because of its cheapness it became popular with the poor.” Eventually, of course, the British government realized they could be making more money, and enacted the Gin Act of 1736, resulting in riots, massive illicit distilling and the cynical marketing of “medicinal” spirits with such fanciful names as Cuckold’s Comfort and My Lady’s Eye Water. Because of its ease of production, gin was often mixed with even worse ingredients, and might have caused higher death rates.

The gin they drank back then–at least the gin that started it all–tasted different from the Gordons, Bombay, Tanqueray etc. East Coast elitists sip with their tonic on the golf course. The original gin was Genever, or Holland gin, is “Richer, maltier, and with a greater depth of flavor” than today’s gin, and from some accounts, gin elitists (not the same as E.C. elitists) mourn the loss of the earlier type of gin.

But then I saw that Amsterdam-based spirits company Lucas Bols is doing a global relaunch of Bols Genever, which is made from a recipe the company was using in 1820. New York liquor stores will start stocking Bols Genever at the end of this month, with stores in San Francisco and London to follow shortly.

Having read of the devastation gin caused in our period, now I’m not so sure I want to be drinking the stuff this afternoon, but I am interested in tasting Bols Genever, just to see if I can detect a difference in the flavor.

Do you have a favorite cocktail, either for summer or fall? Are you interested in the shadier aspects of Regency life? Do you like to try period-authentic flavors?

Megan

PS: Apologies again for not coming back to comment, I will be on the road most of today.
*Fagin to Oliver in Oliver Twist

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 12 Replies

My apologies for this late post. This is my first “writing day” or, if you like, my first goofing off day in my new schedule. And you’ll see why I’m posting late when I tell you what I did today–meeting with friends and going to an art museum

As you all know, it’s the anniversary of 9/11 and at first it almost seemed wrong to have such a hedonistic day. I find myself looking for omens on the anniversary: is the weather similar? No, today was warm and cloudy. 2001 was a perfect fall day, crisp and cool, with more orange and yellow in the trees, and the season more advanced. When I heard the first announcement on NPR at about 8:48 am I was just turning into the parking lot at work (and I can’t remember why I decided to drive into work that day, but I was glad I did, because I wouldn’t have been able to get home). I was driving at that time today, too. I was listening to the radio with some degree of anxiety.

But also with some degree of anticipation because I was about to meet up with my friend Christie Kelley, who gave me one of her brand new cover flats (we laughed about the chandelier with light bulbs and the hero’s huge phallic thumb). We talked about what we were writing or not writing and a whole lot of other things.

Then this afternoon I went into Washington DC to meet Celia May Hart and talked about–yes, what we were writing or not writing and a whole lot of other things. We met up at the National Portrait Gallery and looked at some pix of men with beards (e.g., Walt Whitman) as well as a special exhibit on Katherine Hepburn.

And then home to blog and to continue the slum clearance and renovation of what will eventually become my office.

Altogether, a good day, and a good day to celebrate friendship and community.

I’m back in party planning mode, now for my youngest’s 9th birthday. We’ve decided to do an acting/improv theme, having kids use whatever props and costumes we have around the house (and they are many and varied!) doing skits and playing games similar to those on “Whose Line is it Anyway?” Games like Superheroes and Party Quirks, the one in which “guests” are given slips of paper with descriptions of what they are to act out and the “host” must guess what they are supposed to be.

It’s actually not unlike some party/parlor games played during the Regency. Amateur theatricals such as in Mansfield Park, glees and charades were typical house party entertainment. While googling around, I also found evidence for a number of games, some familiar, like “Blind Man’s Buff”, and some that were new to me. Such as this one:

I was surprised to hear that you did not know what a Bullet Pudding is, but as you don’t I will endeavour to describe it as follows: You must have a large
pewter dish filled with flour which you must pile up into a sort of pudding with a peek at top. You must then lay a bullet at top and everybody cuts a slice of it, and the person that is cutting it when it falls must poke about with their noses and chins till they find it and then take it out with their mouths of which makes them strange figures all covered with flour but the worst is that you must not laugh for fear of the flour getting up your nose and mouth and choking you: You must not use your hands in taking the Bullet out. ” –Fanny Austen to a friend, January 17, 1804

As I don’t have servants to clean up, I doubt I’ll do this one at our party!

The Jane Austen Center lists quite a few games played during the Regency and even by Jane Austen and her family. They include games like “Snapdragon” (which sounds dangerous to me!), Bouts-rimees, and “Rhymed with rose”. Here’s what Jane herself came up with:

Happy the lab’rer in his Sunday clothes!
In light-drab coat, smart waistcoat, well-darn’d hose,
And hat upon his head, to church he goes;
As oft, with conscious pride, he downward throws
A glance upon the ample cabbage rose
That, stuck in button-hole, regales his nose,
He envies not the gayest London beaux.
In church he takes his seat among the rows,
Pays to the place the reverence he owes,
Likes best the prayers whose meaning least he knows,
Lists to the sermon in a softening doze,
And rouses joyous at the welcome close.

How about you? Do you enjoy theatricals? Parlor games? Which games would you most like to see at a Risky Retreat? Here’s one I think we could play if we invited the right guests: say Colin, Orlando, Sean and Gerard?

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 15 Replies