You are the winner of Improper Relations signed by Janet Mullany.
Since you provided your email address, we’ll be in touch!
The Riskies
You are the winner of Improper Relations signed by Janet Mullany.
Since you provided your email address, we’ll be in touch!
The Riskies
Since last week’s I AM WRITING, GOSH DARN IT post, I have been . . . writing! Yay!
Not to mention doing the other things I do, such as taking care of my son, my husband, the house, my addiction to Scramble, the odd financial detail and therapy. What–you thought my neuroses were organic? Heck, no, they’re carefully cultivated!
Anyway, in therapy, we’ve been discussing low frustration tolerance, the tendency for someone to seek “immediate pleasure or avoidance of pain at the cost of long-term stress and defeatism.” Apparently, I have it, because I try to fix things as soon as they are uncomfortable for me.
While I try to sit with the uncomfortable feelings for longer than I have been able to in the past, I’ve also been thinking about LFT in terms of my writing; specifically, my need to make everything better for my characters. Which, oddly enough, results in pretty boring plots. I mean, who wants to hear about someone who has a hiccup in their life that’s solved easily in the next chapter?
My answer to that would be: “No one.”
So while I’m adjusting my LFT in real life, I’m also examining my plot to make sure I sustain uncomfortable moments for longer so the resolution is ultimately more satisfying. To that end, in my current WIP, I am going to kill off a beloved character (well, beloved by me, at least) because it serves the story better, even though it makes me sad.
How’s your FT? What books have you read where the uncomfortable feeling has been well-sustained? At what point in the books you read or write do you like to resolve things?
Diane here, with the absolute delight of interviewing Riskies own Janet Mullany about her Little Black Dress release, Improper Relations, released today! If you haven’t already, hurry over to Book Depository (with its free shipping) or any UK book vendor and order this book.
I read Improper Relations and I am absolutely in awe. I don’t think I’ve read anyone who reminded me more of Georgette Heyer, except Janet writes like Heyer after a few drinks.
But don’t just listen to me. Here’s a review of Improper Relations
What I continue to love about Janet Mullany’s books is how she manages to convincingly tell her story in first person from both her hero and her heroine’s perspective. The first person narrative gives an extremely refreshing take on the insanity which populates the plot; from the way her heroine observes the foibles of her own family, to the slowly beautiful dance it takes the hero to discover he’s in love. I can’t wait to see where she goes next–Stacey, Publisher’s Weekly, Beyond the Book.
Janet will give away a signed copy of Improper Relations to one lucky commenter chosen at random. Without further ado, here’s Janet!
Janet, what were you doing? Channeling a very naughty Georgette Heyer? Tell us about Improper Relations!I brought a conversation at a conference to a total embarrassed stop when I told a group of writers (who I’d never met before) that I really wasn’t very interested in men because relationships between women were so much more interesting and that’s what I was currently writing about! To clarify my out-of-the-closet confession, I wanted to write a romance where a friendship between two women is as central to the book as the romantic relationship itself, and loyalty, to the friend or the husband, cause the conflict that drive the plot. And I have to admit I really wanted to start a book with the sentence: My story begins with a marriage.
You did such a clever job of tying all the threads together. It made me very curious about your plotting process. Did you figure it all out ahead of time? Or did you fly by the seat of your pants?
A bit of both. I sold it on proposal, so I knew roughly what was going to happen, but I trusted to luck about how everything would tie in. There was a character, a rather horrible old lady, who appeared quite early on and she turned out be very significant later. I blogged about that at the Riskies after I’d written a scene with her in the middle of the night as an example of trusting your instincts when writing, which I really did with this book. I tend to spend a lot of time thinking about fixing to get ready etc. to write and my first drafts are usually very clean, which is just as well.
Your voice is so distinct. Were there any writers in particular who inspired your style?
I’ve read a lot, but mostly outside romance. I write romance because I think what I write fits in with the genre (which is huge, there’s room for a lot of variants and niches!) so I don’t think I ever fell into the trap of writing as though I were writing a romance (does that make sense?). I don’t analyze what I do a lot, but I’ve always been able to make people laugh. Apparently John Cleese realized that his repressed anger was the inspiration for Monty Python sketches that involved people shut up together shouting at each other (The Argument Sketch here). I tend to like getting groups of people behaving badly together, and I don’t quite know what that says about me (it was at the core of my last book, A Most Lamentable Comedy, where they were all engaged in amateur theatricals in the country). The huge resolution scene in Improper Relations has about six to ten people coming in and out of a room at an inn.
I didn’t see any special research in Improper Relations. Was there any?
Uh. No. Originally Shad, the hero, started off as a military officer, but I was reading Nelson: A Personal History, by Christopher Hibbert (wonderful historian) while I was writing it and so he became a naval man.
What is risky about Improper Relations?
I don’t think it is a particularly risky book, to be honest, other than in style and structure. It’s all very conventional stuff, but I think the risk comes in the delivery. With all my books, either readers are going to get it or they’re going to be confused–I hope more of the former than the latter! If there is an element of risk, it’s in having a heroine who allows herself to be manipulated by someone she loves–and it’s not the hero or another man, it’s her best friend. Oh, and the hero and heroine end up in bed at the end of the book and go to sleep instead of having a boinkfest. I wanted them to fade into domestic tranquillity.
I’m in awe about how you included just about every Regency cliché there is. How did you do that?
I had a sort of shopping list of things I wanted to include, as well as the first sentence! I wanted to do a marriage of convenience because I thought the sex would be interesting to write about; I also wanted a duel, a Vauxhall Garden scene, the heroine to be transformed by a makeover into a ravishing beauty, a John Thorpe, a Wickham … I make absolutely no secret of the fact that I’m writing for my own pleasure and entertainment. And, yes, there’s sex in this, but sex as practiced by uptight Georgian people in an era where men married good girls and had sex for procreation, and paid bad girls for anything else. So great sex in marriage is a delightful, if worrying, surprise.
What amazingly clever, wickedly irreverent, riotously funny book is next for you?
My next Little Black Dress book, for spring 2011, is going to be called Mr. Bishop and the Actress–it’s funny that with all three of the books for Little Black Dress the title has come first or very early in the process. And I hope it’s all of the above! I don’t know if this is generally known outside England, but if you tack on “…as the actress said to the bishop” to an innocent statement, it immediately makes it obscene. For instance, “Do you think it will snow today?” “Yes, we’re supposed to get six inches … as the actress said to the bishop.” (The same thing works with fortune cookies, if you add “in bed.”) Possibly Shad and Charlotte (hero and heroine of Improper Relations) will appear as secondary characters.
In April, I have a Loose-Id e-novella, Reader, I Married Him, a dirty version of Jane Eyre, and then in October I have Jane & the Damned from HarperCollins and my novella which may or may not be called Little to Hex Her, based on Emma, in the anthology Bespelling Jane with Mary Balogh, Susan Krinard, and Colleen Gleason.
I can’t wait!
Remember, everyone, comment for a chance to win a copy of Improper Relations. Ask Janet a question or see how many Regency conventions we can list. What are your favorites?
One more snow picture….That’s me, age 2, sitting on a mound of snow in Buffalo, NY.
I’m pleased to report that the Washington, DC, area easily beat out Buffalo for the most snow this winter. I watched carefully as we inched up to the Syracuse totals…and passed them!!! Yay! We won the city with the most snow for the winter of 2009-2010.
And we totally toasted the 1898-1899 all time record. We’re NUMBER ONE!!!
Being snowed in for a week is a discombobulating experience (Can you tell?). You’d think that I could get lots of writing done, but, then, the neighbors are shoveling and peer pressure demands I get my shovel out. Then there is exhaustion….Lots of looking outside, commenting on how high the snow has gotten, whether the Federal Government (and everything else) would be open or closed…lots of gazing at the Weather Channel.
In between writing, shoveling, checking email, eating, and various other things, I also discovered some interesting discussions about the romance genre, articles that made my brain work AND supported my beliefs (what could be better?).
The is by Jessica Tripler, a romance reader and philosophy professor, whose blog is called Racy Romance Reviews:
Feminist Critique of Romance: Ur Doing It Wrong
Jessica responds to an article in an academic journal. From the article’s abstract:
This article ultimately endeavours to demonstrate that, textually, even the most recent incarnations of the Harlequin Mills & Boon brand fail to withstand feminist scrutiny. … Something of an antidote to the Harlequin Mills & Boon romance, Bridget Jones’s Diary explicitly answers and counters many of the low-brow romance’s perceived ideological failings–from THE BARRISTER’S BEDMATE: Harlequin Mills & Boon and the Bridget Jones Debate” by Rochelle Hurst, Australian Feminist Studies, Vol. 24, No. 62, December 2009
The books Hurst decided to contrast with Bridget Jones’s Diary were the Harlequin Mills and Boon books of Emma Darcy. It may be just me, but I think it’s a bit snarky to put down a fellow Aussie who has been such a phenomenal success. Or perhaps to an Australian who doesn’t read romance, Emma Darcy is the only Australian Romance author, sorta like Nora Roberts…
Anyway, Tripler, with the help of Laura Vivanco of the Teach Me Tonight blog (more about her later) discuss several of Hurst’s misquotes and misteps in her research. Fascinating stuff, even though we hear the same old stereotypes of romance debunked again.
Next, we’re back to Yale. Andrea DaRif (Cara Elliott) and Lauren Willig are still calling attention to the romance genre with their very-first-ever Yale course on Regency Romance. This time The Yale Herald Online has an article by Katherine Orazem called In Defense of Romance: Proving the Stereotypes Wrong . Of course, the article is illustrated with a stereotypic parody of a Romance cover and this teaser: “Katherine Orazem investigates why romance novels do not get the respect (and love) they deserve.” I mean, why stick the “(and love)” in there? Makes no sense when romance outsells all other mass market books.
Orazem’s discussion is interesting and fun and the quotes by Andrea and Lauren and Susan Elizabeth Phillips are terrific. My favorite quote is from Harlequin Historical author, Louise Allen, in response to the feminism vs. romance novel issue: “Among the freedoms I insist upon as a woman is the right to my own fantasies.” Right on, Louise!
By the way, in my previous blog on the Andrea and Lauren’s Yale course, Andrea said she would post the syllabus and reading list when she could. It is now on her website. You’ll notice Amanda’s and Janet’s names on the reading list! I’m just saying….
Laura Vivanco was also quoted in Orazem’s article and has written some of her thoughts about it on the Teach Me Tonight Blog: musings on romance fiction from an academic perspective. Vivanco addresses Romance Novels: Literary Texts or Formulaic Stories? tackling the question of what makes a work literary or what makes it junk.
In her discussion, she quotes from Noël Carroll (“The Paradox of Junk Fiction. Philosophy and Literature 18.2 (1994): 225-241) who says “all cultural products contain a mixture of two kinds of elements: conventions and inventions.” Conventions and inventions! I like that!
Vivanco further mentions another blog discussing Carroll’s article about Junk Fiction–by Jessica Tripler on Racy Romance Reviews. Which brings me full circle. Another stimulating discussion…
What do you think? Do you like academic discussions about romance? Do you have pet peeves about romance stereotypes? Like always discussing present day romance as if they are exactly the same as the “bodice rippers” of the 1970s. Or that all romances are the same. Or that romance is about a woman subjugating herself to a man. What do you think?