Monthly Archives: June 2014

Emma Approved

Updated on June 28, 2014 by Myretta

Are you watching Emma Approved? The people who brought you the wildly popular Lizzie Bennet Diaries and the ill-conceived Welcome to Sanditon have taken on Jane Austen’s Emma and are 56 web episodes into a modernization of the story. Although I don’t feel Emma Approved has the appeal of the Lizzie Bennet Diaries, it’s doing a pretty good job of moving the story into the 21st Century. There’s a good cast. Alex Knightley is pretty fanciable. Maddie Bates is hilarious. Harriet Smith is an excellent combination of shy and aspirational (and I’m waiting for Robert Martin to come back).

The sticking point for me is Emma Woodhouse. I know she’s a character of whom Jane Austen said, “I am going to take a heroine whom no one but myself will much like.” If I recall my first reading of the book, I thought she was right. I didn’t like Emma very much. But she grew on me, through the course of the book and through each subsequent reading. I’ll admit that she’s not Jane Austen’s most likable heroine. I’m guessing that’s Lizzy Bennet (raise your hands). Apart of Lady Susan, whom we really can’t identify as a heroine, she might very well the least likable. (Although my vote here goes to Marianne Dashwood.)

But Emma Approved Emma is not really growing on me. Perhaps its because she’s too perky. Perhaps it’s because she hasn’t been brought low yet. Perhaps its the actress. I really want to like her. I like what’s being done with this adaptation. I keep watching in the hope that she’ll pull it out yet (and because I think Alex Knightley is adorable). So… what about you? Are you watching? Does it work for you? Do you have reservations? Have you seen the preceding Web series (I refuse to call them “webisodes.)

Posted in Frivolity, Jane Austen, TV and Film | 2 Replies

What makes a Regency “Traditional”?

Updated on June 27, 2014 by Elena Greene

I’m always interested in the keywords used to describe books. Having already talked about what “sweet” means with regard to Regencies, I’m moving on to “traditional”.

There are various explanations of how traditional Regencies differ from Regency-set historical romance.

Traditional Regencies are short. But some of the older ones were 80,000 words or more, especially those published as Super Regencies.

Traditional Regencies are “sweet.” There are many exceptions, including some books by the Riskies. Sweet historical romance also exists.

Traditional Regencies depict the world of the Regency as described by Jane Austen and/or Georgette Heyer. True to a degree, but neither of them ever included paranormal elements like vampires. Or time travel. Or Greek deities who take a mischievous role in the characters’ love lives.

Traditional Regencies are historically accurate. Not always! I’ve heard there was a Zebra Regency that included photography as if it were in common use. I’ve also read traditional Regencies with errors in titles, fox hunting in the summer, etc…, and many that seem to rely almost entirely on Georgette Heyer for background information. Although we know she did meticulous work, the sensibility in her books is largely Victorian.

One other point is that many authors of Regency-set historical romance do extensive research (I do!) although they may incorporate aspects of the setting that were not seen in books by Jane Austen or Georgette Heyer.

Traditional Regencies are light and witty “comedies of manners”. There were some pretty angsty traditional Regencies, dealing with substance abuse, PTSD and other serious themes.

So even while some of these traits often describe traditional Regencies, it seems to me that the only simple definition is those books published in the traditional Regency lines. Of course, now there are indie authors and specialty lines who publish what are generally agreed to be “traditional” Regencies.

The only definition I’ve been able to come up with that makes sense is that in a traditional Regency, the Regency setting is more consistently emphasized, described in detail (even if the detail may be incorrect or copied from Georgette Heyer), and that the setting often takes on an importance almost as if it were a secondary character.

So what do you think? What makes a Regency “traditional”?

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

Posted in Regency, Risky Book Talk | Tagged traditional Regency | 16 Replies

Where Was The Duchess of Richmond’s Ball?

Updated on June 23, 2014 by diane

I am down to the last week before my current WIP will (hopefully!) be done and am getting close to the Battle of Waterloo. My hero and heroine are both in Brussels and are planning to attend the Duchess of Richmond’s Ball, that famous ball that took place the evening that Wellington learned that Napoleon was on the march in Belgium. So I’ve been immersing myself in Waterloo Youtube videos and reading about the ball.

Did you know for years the actual location of the ball was the subject of debate? It was long thought to have taken place in the Hotel de Ville in the Grand Place in Brussels, not because there was any evidence to that fact, though.

Other locations suggested were the Duke of Richmond’s coach house and stables. In the Illustrated London News in the mid-nineteenth century, the location of the ball was listed as being at the Maison du Roi, the king’s palace, a grand location, but, again, totally false.

The true location is described by a very credible source–The Duchess’s daughter who was present at the ball.

She says:

My mother’s now famous ball took place in a large room on the ground floor, on the left of the entrance, connected with the rest of the house by an anteroom. It had been used by the coach builder, from whom the house was hired, to put carriages in, but it was papered before we came there; and I recollect the paper — a trellis pattern with roses. My sisters used the room as a schoolroom, and we used to play battledore and shuttlecock there on a wet day.*

The house the Richmonds rented was on the Rue de la Blanchisserie, so named because a laundry once existed on the site. Wellington used to refer to the residence as “the Wash House,” which he thought was pretty funny and the Duchess of Richmond, a prickly sort of woman, didn’t. In any event, her daughter’s description was pretty clear that it wasn’t any of those other places.

For a beautiful description of the ball, see Amanda’s 2008 Risky Regencies blog

By the way, in my YouTube viewing I discovered two other pretty blatant errors. In one video, they stated the date of the Battle of Waterloo to be July 18, 1815 instead of June 18 (who am I to remark upon that? My book Chivalrous Captain, Rebel Mistress contained the same mistake, a typo, in my case). Another video kept calling Wellington the “future Duke of Wellington,” but he received that title in 1814 after Napoleon’s first abdication.

And while we are on the subject, I am ALL ENVY at Susanna’s plans to attend the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo!!!

*from The Duchess of Richmond’s Ball 15 June 1815 by David Miller

Have you come across any grievous historical errors lately?

Posted in Regency, Research, Risky Regencies | Tagged Battle of Waterloo, Duchess of Richmond's ball | Leave a reply

Silver Fork Novels

Updated on June 21, 2014 by megan

Likely the more research-minded of the Riskies knew about this genre already (and Sandra Schwab added more to my knowledge), but just this week I was looking for a type of novel that would be written in the early Victorian era, and I found out about ‘Silver fork‘ novels (my heroine’s sister is writing a serial).

These are novels that were set in the Regency, but written thirty years later, taking a reminiscent look back at the period but also casting a censorious eye on some of its frivolities (this was the Victorian era, remember). I was trying to think about how that would work now; would novelists return to the mid-’80s and write about new wave, and about Ronald Reagan’s presidency, and the ending of the Cold War, and Prime Minister Thatcher? There are novels that do that, of course, but it’s not a genre, per se.

Inevitably there came the anti-silver fork novel movement, which deglamorized the period, didn’t concentrate on the aristocracy, and tried to be less treacly in writing about the period.

It’s looking back at these kinds of artistic movements that make me realize we’re not so different from our ancestors, 200+ years on. We continue to write, and react-write, and react-react-write, so that everything keeps rolling in a continuous circle.

And meanwhile, I am almost up to 10,000 words on the new book, a Marriage of Convenience story with a rakish duke and his perfectly impeccable duchess. Here’s a bit from the beginning:

So he was not so happy when he heard his brother Griffith calling his name.

Griff wasn’t bad, as brothers went, in fact Nicholas quite liked him. But Griff, unlike his older brother, did not habituate houses of ill repute, nor even houses of good repute, instead usually staying in the library to spend more time reading.

“Excuse me, ladies,” Nicholas said, removing the woman from his lap and placing her gently beside him. He did up the buttons of his shirt and ran a hand through his hair, which he knew was entirely disheveled, thanks to the sensual stroking and playing that had been done to it.

“In here, Griff,” he shouted, getting to his feet. He was just tucking his shirt back into his trousers when Griffith entered, his brother’s eyes widening as he saw what must have appeared to be absolute and total debauchery in the room.

Or, as Nicholas liked to call it, Tuesday.

Hope everyone is having a lovely weekend!

Megan

Posted in Risky Regencies | Tagged Megan | 2 Replies

This time next year…

Updated on June 19, 2014 by susanna

…I will be in Belgium for the events surrounding the bicentenary of the Battle of Waterloo! I bought my tickets for the reenactment yesterday, as soon as I heard they were available.

I’ve been planning this trip for over ten years, saving money and vacation time so I can take at least four weeks off work. The current plan is to fly into London so we can give our daughter, who’ll be 11 and just finished with 5th grade then, a soft, English-speaking landing for her first trip abroad. She’s such a huge Doctor Who fan that London should seem familiar to her.

Then it’s on to Belgium for the reenactment. From there our tentative itinerary is several days in Paris, followed by almost a week in the Dordogne River valley (for delicious food, prehistoric cave paintings, and some nice relaxation in the middle of what will surely be a hectic trip). After that I’ll put my Wellington fangirl hat back on as we go into Spain and Portugal, where we’ll visit at least a few Peninsular War sites.

Is anyone else going to be at the reenactment? And do you have a “trip of a lifetime,” either in your past or planned for your future?

Posted in Anything but writing, Regency | Tagged Duke of Wellington, Susanna Fraser, travel, Waterloo | 11 Replies