Back to Top

Monthly Archives: March 2012

Coming up For Air

Updated on by

Yesterday I turned in my revisions for Not Proper Enough, the sequel to Not Wicked Enough, which I hope you have all rushed out to buy, because I could use another couple of sales, let me tell you.

Whenever an editor says to me something along the lines of “My revisions are really light, I don’t think they’ll take long,” I kind of die inside because that inevitably means there are 3-4 offhand comments that require massive rewriting to properly address. Likewise, I’ve had revision letters that apologize for the huge changes requested and then when you look at them, the huge changes take a couple sentences to fix. Literally.

This time was an in between case. Yes, the revisions were thought to be light but I revised A LOT on my own and to support the revisions requested. Plus the day job required a kind of dreadful amount of my time and attention, so wow. It’s been a tough 2 weeks.

The good news is, as I was working through the MS, I kept thinking, gee, this is WAY better than I remember. And way hotter.

I am brain dead mostly.

And now, as the kitty sez. We all wait for the awesomeness that is Not Proper Enough. September 2012.

Posted in Former Riskies, Risky Book Talk, Writing | Tagged , , , | 4 Replies

We’re all in Trouble Because I’ve been Thinking

Updated on by

Here’s what I’ve been thinking.

1. It’s important, to me, to know a lot about the historical era I write about (The Regency).

2. Some things were invented/discovered/thought of AFTER the Regency

3. People haven’t changed all that much.

4. People today have been affected by things invented/discovered/thought of AFTER the Regency.

5. Because of No. 4, people in the Regency used/believed/needed things we don’t today.

So. If you’re going to write historical fiction, you should know about the things invented/discovered/thought of AFTER the Regency so you don’t have your hero driving a car a wee bit before Henry Ford started mass producing the automobile.

Number 5 is interesting, though. There’s all these things we know nothing about that people in the Regency used every day. And it shaped their world and their view of the world.

How you interact with the spaces around you is different if there’s no electricity. When you enter a darkened room, you don’t automatically reach for the light switch and speed along into the room on your merry way.

Instead you have to go a little slower, maybe. You, or your servant, might be carrying a light source already. But it’s not as bright as electric light, right?

And if you don’t have your light source with you, then there should be one by the door. Where else would you put it? It has to be by the door so you don’t kill yourself walking about in the dark.

Since the room is darkened (assuming you didn’t bring your light with you) you have to pause to light a candle or a a lamp or something else before you proceed.

Now you’re carrying something flammable…. I’m not aware of non-flammable light sources until electricty came along (no sun, doh, the room is darkened, besides, the sun IS a flammable object)  you need to be paying at least a little bit of attention to how and where you’re walking.

Your light source is also unlikely to light the entire room the way turning on the electric light does. Again, you probably have to watch your step.

We know there were clever ways to increase the amount of light in a room, mirrors, for example.

I really do sometimes just sit and think about all the ways things were different and how that shaped what people did. In the dark I can proceed to the light switch and flick. Instantaneous light fills the room. Now I can walk quickly to my destination. Also, I am not wearing layers and layers of clothes…. I am less encumbered by my clothes, I’m pretty sure, than a Regency lady was by hers.

I do my thing and turn out the light on my way out.

The Regency woman is either still carrying her light source or still followed by the servant with the light or is headed where she won’t need the light. But the light needed in the darkened room can’t be disposed of with a flick. Someone has to deal with that.

That what I was thinking lately. About all those extra things people had to do or think about. More steps. More work. More time.

Thank you Mr. Edison. And Mr. Tesla.

Posted in Former Riskies, Regency, Research, Writing | Tagged , | 10 Replies

Looking at Details (Post Regency Visual Rhetoric)

Updated on by

The images in this post are from my copy of GWM Reynold’s Penny Dreadful series, Mysteries of London. The publication of the series spans the period from about 1837 to 1844.

I apologize for the images: I don’t have the correct lens for these kinds of pictures, and I didn’t want to scan them because then I’d have to lay the book flat and further break the binding.

Cross-Dressing in 1831

There are readers (and authors) with strong opinions about cross-dressing heroines. I have heard some people state categorically that such historicals are wildly inaccurate. That might be true. Depends on the book, I suppose. Below is an example of a cross-dressing heroine for a story that opens in 1831. It is, in fact, the opening of the wildly popular and successful Mysteries Of London, a series that made GWM Reynold’s fortune, by the way.

Obviously, the popular culture liked some ladies dressed as men.

There are many other interesting things present in this illustration (above), such as the smog. The horse’s ass is another. It has, I’m pretty sure, just relieved itself. Or maybe is actually in the process. Then again, as you’ll see, there are many tricks of shadow.

Keeping in mind the choices the artist made, note the pregnant woman in tatters with three young children and just to left, a plainly well-off couple. What does that suggest about the consequences of poverty and a woman not being able to control her fertility?

Ah, the cross-dressing heroine. Her hair is down, which seems odd if you wish to be taken for a man. The “meta” conversation about this illustration is to what extent the illustrator either deliberately, by instruction, or sub-consciously, drew a figure that possesses so much of the feminine that I look at that picture and say, yeah. Chick. Not fooled.

It’s interesting, I think, that so many of the figures appear to be looking at her and they don’t look happy.

Sorry for the poor quality. Too lazy to go take a better one. However, this picture (above) fascinates me most because of the hats hanging from pegs above the door.  This is a well-to-do home. Now, how handy is that? Pegs for the gentlemen’s hats? So much for the butler carrying away the hats. Maybe in the really rich houses.

Note as well the key in the door to the left. Keys in the doors. Yeah.

She’s a Lady. She’s Not A Lady.

Hmm. What messages might there be in the next two pictures?

In the picture above, there are obvious things such as the house, surroundings, the woman’s position and posture that tells us she’s wealthy and a lady. The table next to her has books and a flower. Itty-bitty flower and flower pot, which is interesting.

I don’t think I’ve ever read a historical where the flowers in a room were anything but large bouquets. In this book, however, there are plenty of examples of small pots containing very small greenery. They show up in several of the illustrations.

Well. The woman above is NOT a lady. So say I. Because, look at her. She’s not sitting up straight and the upper bit of her gown looks to be about to fall off any minute. And what’s that on HER table?

No books. Alcohol.  I believe in the foreground those are pipes. This is not a neat table. It’s cluttered. She has been drawn so that she looks dissolute. And thus, we see the signs of dissolution.

The LADY is plainly thinking wistful thoughts. Oh, Howard, how I miss you, my darling. I cannot even read my book without you.

The NOT A LADY does not look wistful. She looks tired. (I will represent to you that in the rest of this illustration there is a man standing by the fireplace.) She looks like she’s thinking: If that asshat asks to see my tits again, I’m going to smack him. Why doesn’t he ever ask if I want a foot rub? Oh, fuck it, I want a drink.

The Case of the Missing Package

(above) Ohh-la-la! They are kissing! ::giggle:: And look at his … you know. Hey. Wait a minute!

Where the hell is his dick?

That’s some fine tricks with shadows.

What do YOU think?

Posted in Former Riskies, Research | Tagged , , , | 8 Replies

Sexy Voices, Part II

Updated on by

Here’s a follow-up on last week’s post on Sexy Voices. Thanks everyone for your suggestions which sent me on a fun and inspiring search through Youtube! My apologies for not including every suggestion here.

Beth Elliott recommended baritone Ildebrando d’Arcangelo. What a gorgeous voice and he doesn’t hurt the eyes, either! Here he is performing the seductive “La ci darem la mano” from Mozart’s Don Giovanni.

I don’t know what possessed me not to have featured Alan Rickman last week. He could read poetry to me any day. Turn up the volume for maximum enjoyment!

Any Regency hot voice collection has to include Sean Bean. Here he is narrating the beginning of a clip of the poignant “Over the Hills and Far Away”.

Finally, I must include Gerard Butler, for his own artistic merit and also so Diane doesn’t cut my acquaintance!

Enjoy!

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

Posted in Music, TV and Film, Writing | Tagged , , , , | 5 Replies

Costume Drama

Updated on by

Last night my local PBS station aired a special hailing the origin and rise of the costume drama, as done by British television and introduced to American audiences as Masterpiece Theater or Great Performances. The documentary was aired as a special during the fund-raising, so your own PBS station might not have it, and I haven’t checked to see if it is on Netflix. (The Baltimore PBS station aired an Albert Hall concert version of Phantom of the Opera that I missed except for the end, but that is another story…)

The documentary lists the 1967 black and white version of The Forsythe Saga as the beginning of costume drama on TV. I confess, I did not watch this show. I didn’t catch up until I, Claudius and the Poldark Series.

I, Claudius was a ground-breaker in the subject matter that was part of the story, the violence (shown off-stage) and incest (suggested in the BBC version but cut from the American version). I remember being totally hooked on that series.

Poldark actually led to naming our daughter, except we didn’t go through with it. My husband and I really liked the name Morwenna, but we feared it was too strange for an American little girl. Instead we picked a name we heard on Rockford Files, which turned out to be one of the most popular girls names of the year. My daughter wishes we’d named her Morwenna, because then she could have been called “Mo.” (I would have called her “Wenna.”)

Another ground-breaker was Brideshead Revisited, for its depiction of a homosexual relationship between two men. I confess, I did not realize that part of the story. I thought it was just a friendship. Somehow now it becomes even more poignant. It was also ground-breaking in that it was entirely filmed on location.

Moll Flanders was mentioned as a daring sexual romp, another one I missed.

Cranford had the distinction of showing a town where most of the inhabitants were women. Jewel in the Crown showed a part of British history that needed apology.

But one costume drama “changed everything.” The seminal scene depicted one muslin-shirted man who dove into a pond to cool off after a hard day’s ride. Colin Firth striding across the lawn in a wet, semi-transparent shirt, in the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice was a moment none of us will ever forget!

What is your favorite costume drama? Is there a sleeper that you remember fondly?

Thursday at Diane’s Blog I’ll talk about my writers weekend at Inn Boonsboro.

Posted in TV and Film | Tagged | 4 Replies