Back to Top

Monthly Archives: December 2011

Listen to Christmas

Updated on by

Mostly videos today, something to put you in the Christmas spirit, and I want to share with you some of my favorite Christmas music.

First, here’s a new favorite, a Winter Solstice piece–thanks to Jane George for directing me to this.

Moving on to something entirely different and not necessarily anything to do with winter or Christmas, and from one of the all time flops of the big screen, a dance scene from Becoming Jane. (It’s the season for parties, after all!) I think this is so brilliantly done because the expressions and gestures tell us so much about the relationships:

But moving a little toward Christmas now, here’s Steeleye Span performing Gaudete (rejoice), a medieval plainchant. I’ve been a fan of this group for, uh, a very long time:

What would Christmas be without the Messiah? I always try to get to a live performance although I think this year I’m not going to make one. I’m torn between the Messiah performing style I grew up with, featuring a huge local choir, and the original instrument/performance practice approach I now prefer. So here’s Stephen Cleobury and the Choir of King’s College, Cambridge (all boys club!) a reconstruction of the 1752 version.

And now it’s time to make you cry. First, John McCutcheon, Christmas in the Trenches. (It’s all true!) Listen to what he says at the beginning about this “story that needs to be told 365 days a year”–and may all our loved ones come home safely.

Finally, what for me is the ultimate tearjerker, the December 24 Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols, the Choir of King’s College Cambridge again–this is the beginning of the 2010 service. It always starts with the treble solo singing Once in Royal David’s City, and is broadcast live worldwide. Check out American Public Radio for the time in your area. There’s a wonderful shot of the vaulted ceiling and windows of the Chapel at about 1:20 in.

Hope you like these. What are your Christmas sounds?

Happy holidays, everyone.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 8 Replies

Christmas Shopping – Regency Style

Updated on by

This weekend I finally got serious about Christmas shopping. I had good intentions of going out to the mall, but, every time I thought of what I might buy, I’d look on the internet and find the exact item with a promise for delivery by Christmas. As a result, I have done 99 per cent of my shopping all online! We’ll see how smart this was when Christmas eve rolls around. Will these vendors make good on their promises or will I have to write notes in empty boxes for my family to open on Christmas day?

This got me to thinking….What gifts would I purchase for my family if the year were 1819 and I’m shopping in London?

Guess what? I could go to the mall–The Burlington Arcade, I mean.

The Burlington Arcade is a covered shopping area behind Bond Street on what was formerly the garden of Burlington House. Lord George Cavendish, younger brother of the Duke of Devonshire owned Burlington House and wanted to do something to prevent ruffians from throwing trash and oyster shells into his garden. He hired architect Same Ware to design the arcade which had spaces for 72 enclosed shops. The arcade opened in 1819 and was an instant success. It is still the place to go for fashionable shopping in London.

By the way, in my next book, A Not So Respectable Gentleman, Leo, the hero and brother of the Diamonds of Wellbourne Manor, runs into the Burlington Arcade to escape the bad guys….

But I digress! I’m supposed to be shopping.

If I can’t find all the gifts in the Burlington Arcade, I can shop at a department store–Harding Howell and Co, which sells everything from lace and every kind of haberdashery, but also jewelry, watches, clocks, perfumery and more. Harding Howell and Co. was opened in 1807 in Pall Mall.

Between these two places, I ought to find gifts for everyone on my list.

Dear Husband: He likes gizmos. And he loves clocks. I think I’ll buy him a French clock. But he’d like a gizmo toy, too, like some kind of automaton.

Dear Daughter: She’s a music lover. I might buy her the latest piano sheet music from the music seller in the arcade although guitar is her instrument of choice these days. Maybe she’d play the harp in the Regency.

Dear Son: He’d probably want the latest in dueling pistols. Or the best hunting whip, although in this time period, his shooting would be confined to video games and his vehicle accessory would probably be a car radio or GPS.

Dear Sisters: for one I’ll have to go to Jermyn Street and buy her some fragrance from Floris. The other might like a pretty new bonnet.

Dear Friends: Oh, I know what I’d buy them. BOOKS!!! Perhaps in 1819, I’d buy them two books in one. Northanger Abbey and Persuasion, published in 1818. Sadly the author died in 1817, but she is our favorite author.

What gifts would you buy for friends and family if you were shopping in Regency England?

Christmas is only 6 days away. Yipes!!!! Pray for prompt UPS men!

You still have more days to enter the Harlequin Historical Authors Holiday Giveaway, though. Enter daily for the best chance to win the grand prize–a Kindle Fire!

Posted in Risky Regencies | Tagged | 14 Replies

Jane, Bad Boys and Winners!

Updated on by

As far as I can recall, Jane Austen never used the term “rake” in her stories, but it’s my understanding that during her time, it had a different spin than we put on it in modern historical romances. Jane’s villains tend to be what might have been called rakes; their common trait is they take advantage (or try to) of women in the stories. Her heroines always end up with the good guys.

Jane’s bad boys aren’t all equally villainous and I have a little more sympathy for some than others. Actors’ interpretations can bring out nuances, too.

Frank Churchill from Emma is the lightweight, more selfish puppy than dark schemer. I can’t remember enough of other portrayals of Frank Churchill to judge, but here’s Ewan McGregor in the 1996 (Gwyneth Paltrow) version.

At the other extreme, Pride & Prejudice’s Wickham is pretty loathsome. Here are Adrian Lukis and Rupert Friend, from the 1995 and 2005 versions, respectively. I think Lukis’s Wickham is a little too obvious to fool Elizabeth. Friend, on the other hand, has a gaunt look about him that makes him seem more vulnerable and thus more deceptive.

William Elliot from Persuasion is another villain without redeeming qualities, but at least Anne sees through him pretty quickly. Here’s Samuel West, from the 1995 film that is my favorite adaptations. Honestly, I can’t remember other portrayals. I need to watch more Austen movies over the holiday break!

Willoughby (Sense & Sensbility) is more interesting. Dominic Cooper in the new version seemed kind of a toad; I prefer Greg Wise’s portrayal in the 1995 (Emma Thompson) version. He gives the sense that he will regret giving up Marianne for the rest of his life. Though perhaps he deserves his fate, I can’t help feeling a little sorry for him.

I also find Henry Crawford from Mansfield Park intriguing. Although I haven’t yet seem a film version of MP that I liked, here’s Alessandro Nivola in the 1999 version.

Although I find these last two the most well rounded as villains, they’re still not quite the reformable rakes of historical romance, who may get around but don’t treat women as badly.

So what do you think of Jane’s bad boys? Which do you find most interesting? Which actors did the best job with them? What do you think of good guys versus rakes in historical romance?

Comment for the chance to win either the annotated copy of Pride & Prejudice or Persuasion. Our Jane Austen Week winner will be announced on Monday.

And congratulations to the following winners of the Kindle ebook of THE REDWYCK CHARM. Please send your email address, and if you wish, the email address of a friend who might enjoy a copy, to elena @ elenagreene.com (no spaces).

Virginia
Beebs
Bibliophile
Na
Barbara E

Happy holidays!

Elena

www.elenagreene.com
www.facebook.com/ElenaGreene

Posted in Jane Austen | Tagged , , | 15 Replies

Happy Birthday, Jane!

Updated on by

Yay! Happy Birthday, Jane! You don’t look a day older than 235.

We’ve been celebrating Jane’s birth all week here at the Riskies, and of course she was on my mind as I rode the subway to work this morning. I haven’t read more than snippets of Jane’s books in years, mostly because I reread them obsessively when I was in my teens, so much so I know I have parts memorized, even thirty years later.

Jane showed me a person could have a different personality and still be likeable. Could still have misguided ideas and still be a good person. Could be tolerable, and also desirable.

Those are some pretty important life lessons.

Earlier this week, Amanda discoursed on Austen film interpretations, and I have to admit to secretly loving the Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier version of Pride and Prejudice. That’s mostly because it was my first version (and you never forget your first…), and I’m pretty sure I saw the film before reading the book, so I didn’t comprehend the incongruity with the text. I knew nothing about historically accurate costumes, or the correct age for the characters, or any of that. I only knew he was handsome, and she was feisty, and I admired her for rejecting such a catch.

Thank you, Jane, for showing me that you should reject people–foxy though they are–if they don’t accept you entirely as you are.

Megan

Posted in Jane Austen | Tagged | 8 Replies