Back to Top

Monthly Archives: July 2014

Nikolaj_Coster_Waldau_image

This is my hero.

While I can’t claim to have thought of the idea first–Seinfeld was famous for being “a show about nothing,”–I can say that I am proudly writing a book about nothing.

It doesn’t work out so well, it seems, when I try to put too much plot in there. So I am writing a book about a gentleman who succeeds somewhat unexpectedly to a dukedom, and finds that the dukedom comes with a duchess–a woman whose parents have entered into agreements to wed her to the man affiliated with the title, no matter who the man is.

It’s a Marriage of Convenience story, and there’s no big villain, or big misunderstanding, or traumatic life or death issues at stake; merely the happiness of two people who are already relatively comfortable in life, at least in terms of their circumstances.

It’s hard to keep the focus purely on the relationship, but I’m a quarter of the way in, and so far, it seems to be okay. I like stories about nothing but the relationship, although I definitely envy authors who can add plot and not make it seem incredibly lame.

Plot will find its way in somehow, it usually does, but meanwhile, I have two characters who have to come to know one another, trust one another and, eventually, love one another.

What other ‘books about nothing’ have you loved?

 

Posted in Risky Regencies | Tagged | 2 Replies

For once not talking about Regency clothes but what happens when you take on all of an author’s books in a short period of time. I attended an Austen discussion group recently where someone mentioned, having read four Austen books in a row, that she was tired of “the stuff”–balls, dances, who was going where with whom, and so on.

I’ve been a victim of this recently, reading with great enjoyment [brief digression to dispose of a mosquito the size of my head followed by burial at sea in bathroom] almost all the books in a series of of mysteries set in England, written by an American author.

What does happen [sorry about the mosquito digression] is that you start to notice the nervous tics, minor obsessions etc. of the writer. Unlike Austen, whose “stuff” is the gears that drive the novel, other writers’ “stuff” may be annoying or endearing. This author is fixated on English sandwiches, the sort sold just about everywhere in triangular packages. They are smaller and more compact than their US counterparts with modest but tasty fillings. The closest thing we have here are those sold by Pret A Manger (a chain that originated in London). Yum.

Now that I don’t mind. I’m quite happy to read about food, and possibly, it’s not too intrusive since the characters tend to chow down and discuss the case. What does bug me about this particular author is that every character introduces themselves in this way: “By the way, I’m …” Really? Do English people do that all the time?

Mysteries seem rather vulnerable to “stuff,” particularly kneejerk descriptions of what characters are wearing, even for cameo appearances. Whether it’s a bizarre reader expectation or an editor demanding a description of some sort, it can be distracting. I read a book some decades ago,  where the action was halted dramatically by sartorial details–memorably, after a gunman burst through a glass door, we were treated to a description of what he was wearing before the action resumed.

Dedication by Janet MullanyMy own writerly nervous tics include huge amounts of tea drinking, leaning on mantelpieces, heroes in tears, and they’re all there in the revised version of my first book Dedication which I self pubbed a few days ago. Filthy and affordable, what more could you ask for? Buy the Kindle version here.

Are you aware of writerly “stuff” as you read? Does it annoy you or do you just accept it as part of the book?

Scene in Kerry, IrelandThis summer I’m starting a new endeavor I may have mentioned before: a new series. I’m not ready to discuss it here yet, because it’s still so shapeless in my mind I can’t quite believe in it. It’s a project that excites me and scares me at the same time, because it’s going to require a lot more research and plotting on a level beyond what I did for my “Three Disgraces” trilogy, which were only loosely connected.

I hope readers will be patient with me as I take this climb. It looks steep, and after a point, I’m not sure what the path will entail. But there’s also the prospect of some amazing views as I get closer to the end.

So I have ordered some new reference books and stocked up on journals and my favorite pen (G-2 Pilot, in blue, not black), because I do my best brainstorming in longhand. I may also play with some easier side projects (I have several ideas for novellas) to take some of the pressure off.

I’m also taking some time to spiff up how I do ebook formatting. Many thanks to Risky Carolyn Jewel who spent an hour or so patiently answering my questions and gave me some excellent suggestions! Although it is technical work, it’s creative too, and that feeds my muse and it’s fun! (Yes, I am a little bid mad, but harmless, I promise you.)

What do you do to psyche yourselves up for a big project?

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

Posted in Writing | Tagged , | 2 Replies

Gillray_-_Treatment_with_tractorsThis week the dh is going to have back surgery and that got me thinking about what surgery was like in the early 1800s.

It wasn’t pretty.

First, there was no anesthetic. Patients might be given alcohol or laudanum to dull the pain but surgeries such as amputations were done with the patient awake. Surgeons who could saw off limbs quickly were valued, as were sharp surgical knives and saws. After the battle of Waterloo, surgeons performed so many amputations that their instruments became dull.

Second, infection was rampant, because infection was not understood. The simple idea of washing hands when going from one patient to another was not part of medical practice, nor was sterilizing instruments. Consequently, many patients died of infection after surgery.

280px-Frances_d'Arblay_('Fanny_Burney')_by_Edward_Francisco_BurneyWe have a first-hand account of what the experience was like for patients. In 1811, novelist Fanny Burney was diagnosed with breast cancer. She was living in France at the time and was treated by Empress Marie Louise’s doctor. She endured a mastectomy performed by seven doctors.

Here is part of her account:
…Bright through the cambric, I saw the glitter of polished Steel – I closed my Eyes. I would not trust to convulsive fear the sight of the terrible incision. Yet — when the dreadful steel was plunged into the breast – cutting through veins – arteries – flesh – nerves – I needed no injunctions not to restrain my cries. I began a scream that lasted unintermittingly during the whole time of the incision – & I almost marvel that it rings not in my Ears still? so excruciating was the agony. When the wound was made, & the instrument was withdrawn, the pain seemed undiminished, for the air that suddenly rushed into those delicate parts felt like a mass of minute but sharp & forked poniards, that were tearing the edges of the wound….

There’s no way to know if Burney truly had cancer or something non-malignant, but she lived almost thirty years longer. That she survived the operation and escaped infection was truly remarkable.

My dh, luckily, will have everything modern medicine can provide. For that, I’m very grateful!

Posted in Regency, Research | 2 Replies

An accomplished young lady - Mary Crawford plays her harp

An accomplished young lady – Mary Crawford plays her harp

The accomplishments of women comes up rather frequently in Jane Austen’s novels. These are nicely summarized at The Jane Austen Information Page at the Republic of Pemberley.  The question is, however, when Jane Austen allows Darcy to mention that, to all of the Bingley tribe’s common place “accomplishments” something else was to be added- substantial reading,- was she representing her attitude or that of society in general?

Let’s take a quick look (also gleaned from The Republic of Pemberley).

During the early part of the 18th century girls education was very rooted in domesticity. In 1704,  a letter from John Evelyn states that girls should be brought up to be:

humble modest, moderate, good housewives, discreetly frugal,without high expectations which will otherwise render them discontented..

This was typical of the general attitude. Gradually the list of topics a girl was expected to master was extended by a set of “accomplishments”- more in line with the Bingleys’ thinking: sewing, embroidery, management of their hosuehold, writing elegant letters with an elegant hand, walking and dancing elegantly, singing, drawing, playing the harpsichord, reading and writing French.

The Bingley sisters were educated at an expensive seminary where great import appears to have been placed on such, when viewed in isolation, trivial accomplishments.

However as they became almost universal accomplishments – due to the growing middle class begin able to afford to send their children to schools where such topics were taught-these limited options lost some of their social cachet.

Maria Edgeworth

Maria Edgeworth

Towards the end of the 18th century there was a move towards an education based on moral education and intellectual stimulation. In her book, Practical Education, Maria Edgeworth’s ideas were influenced by Rousseau’s theories of child rearing where it was assumed that children were rational human beings and that they should be taught by example and be reasoned with rather than punished.

The syllabuses recommended by Practical Education included such topics as chemistry, mineralogy, botany, gardening – a very suitable occupation as it combined academic study with exercise outdoors. Children were encouraged to play with “toys that afforded trials of dexterity and activity such as tops kites, hoops,  balls, battledores and shuttlecocks ,ninepins and cup and ball.”

Maria Edgeworth was also keen on children avoiding bad company- particularly that of servants, who could influence them by their vulgar manners: “If children pass one hour in a day with servants it will be vain to attempt their education.”

Hannah Moore

Hannah Moore

This is the stance that was taken by Hannah Moore too. Her book, Strictures on the Modern System of Female Educationwas published in 1779. She believed that girls should be given a rigorous academic education, but that the emphasis was still to be on maintaining propriety. The aim of her educational book was to produce well- mannered, lively, and intelligent companions for husbands and children.

Here is Hannah Moore’s view of female education:

A lady may speak a little French or Italian, repeat passages in a theatrical tone, play and sing, have her dressing room hung with her own drawings, her person covered with her own tambour work, and may notwithstanding, have been very badly educated.Though well-bred women should learn these, yet at the end a good education is not that they may become dancers, singers, players, or painters but to make them good daughters, good wives, good Christians.

The importance of moral education was also advocated by  John Locke in his influential work (published initially in 1693 ,but by 1777 there had been 25 editions)  Some thoughts Concerning Education.

He advocated a private education within the home- not attendance at school, where children’s morals might be corrupted by association with children and masters of a lesser moral caliber. This became a common factor in education of girls during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

How about the young ladies in your books? What kind of education have they had? Are they satisfied with it?