Back to Top

Monthly Archives: February 2016

Hello, Riskies!  It’s been much too long since I visited our drawing room, and once again I am on a deadline and have fallen behind (oh my!)  Let’s take a look at a re-post of a blog I did in 2009, which is just as much fun now.  Gothic writer Ann Radcliffe died on February 7, 1823, and I always like to take another look at some of her tales….they would be perfect for a Halloween theme party!

Author Ann Radcliffe died on this date in 1823. She could be called “Queen of the Gothic novel,” as many of the standard elements of her plots can still be found in novels today, such as innocent heroines, dark, mysterious heroes, dramatic settings, and wicked villains. (And she was the most popular writer of her own day, influencing Keats and Scott among others, and forming the centerpiece of Catherine Morland’s literary obsessions in Northanger Abbey).

She was born in London in 1764, the only child of William and Anna Ward, and married William Radcliffe at age 22. (Radcliffe was a lawyer, and later editor and owner of The English Chronicle). Ann was said to be shy and reclusive, so not much was known about her private life, which gave rise to many rumors. (She had gone mad as a result of her terrible imagination and been sent to an asylum! She had been captured as a spy in Paris! She ate rare pork chops before bed to stimulate nightmares for her novels!)

J.M.S. Tompkins writes that in all Radcliffe’s novels “a beautiful and solitary girl is persecuted in picturesque surroundings, and, after many fluctuations of fortune, during which she seems again and again on the point of reaching safety, only to be thrust back again into the midst of perils, is restored to her friends and marries the man of her choice.” Sounds like the Victoria Holt stories I was addicted to as a teenager

Her best known works include A Sicilian Romance (1790), The Romance of the Forest (1791), The Italian (1796), and of course The Mysteries of Udolpho. She also wrote a travelogue, A Journey Through Holland and the Western Frontier of Germany (1795) and various poems, which were published by her husband after her death along with the historical romance Gaston de Blondville.

More information can be found (mostly on the books, since the details of her life are still obscure–though I doubt the pork thing) in Deborah Rogers’ Ann Radcliffe: A Biography-Bibliography(1996).Have you ever read any of Radcliffe’s works? Have any favorite modern Gothic authors?? I’m thinking aMysteries of Udolpho-theme Halloween party would be lots of fun…

Have you ever read any of Radcliffe’s books? Have any favorite modern Gothic authors? And what might you wear to my Halloween party???

Happy February!

I have much to delight you with today, including some Shameless Self-Promotion but also a treasure trove of information. . .

Let’s get the shameless self-promotion out of the way. The seventh book in my My Immortals series released last week.

My Demon Warlord

Cover of My Demon Warlord, showing a hot shirtless man who looks exactly as you imagine Kynan Aijan would look.

Cover of My Demon Warlord

A Demon Warlord Bound by Dark Magic. . .

Kynan Aijan’s centuries-long enslavement to a mage left him borderline insane and bound to Maddy Winters, a witch he intended to kill in horrible ways. Though he’s sworn the bonds they share will never be completed, their very existence feeds his desire for her even as he accepts that Winters will never forgive him.

. . . to the Powerful Witch He’s Desired for Years.

For Maddy Winters, the fight against evil magic users always takes top priority. But her bonds to Kynan give her intimate access to his thoughts and experiences, and she can’t always ignore their chemistry. Her insistence that she has no feelings for him is a deception she can’t afford to give up.

As Kynan and Maddy join forces to stop a rebellious and murderous witch, the dark magic that binds them locks them into forbidden passions and magic that could destroy them both. Will their fight for what’s right lead to a fight for each other?

My Demon Warlord is the seventh installment in the My Immortals series of paranormal romance novels. If you like magical supernatural tales, explosive chemistry, and irresistible passion, then you’ll love Carolyn Jewel’s latest breathtaking romance.

Amazon | Barnes&Noble | iBooks | Kobo | Google Play | All Romance eBooks | Print

Historicals!!

In news about my historicals, I am working on Book 3 in my Sinclair Sisters Series. It’s early days and there are some areas of research that are cropping up. If I told you these particular areas, they would be enormous spoilers and, quite possibly, not even in the book by the time I’m done. But never fear! I will be posting research related discoveries later. I learn something new every time.

I’m pulling together the historical novallas I’ve written and getting them spiffied up or ready for release on their own. So there will be that to look forward to. At least, I hope you’ll look forward to that.

Catalog Downloads from the Met, for Free

Risky Sandy posted this link on facebook. It’s from dressful.com — an awesome site, which mentioned that the Met has exhibit catalogs, including fashion related one, available to view online, order Print On Demand, or download as a pdf. And it is AWESOME. The Met Catalogs.

Lookit! Just as an example. If  I go over there again, I won’t get any work done.

The Academy of the Sword: Illustrated Fencing Books 1500–1800, LaRocca, Donald J. (1998)

It’s spectacular–all of it. I want ALL THE CATALOGS! There’s so much there that’s just wonderful and fascinating no matter what you might be interested in, and I want to hug the Met for this. And donate to them, too.

And so. Happy clicking around the Met.

We love you here at the Riskies.

"Neck-tie scarf in imitation of Indian embroidery," from The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine (1860?)

“Neck-tie scarf in imitation of Indian embroidery,” from The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine (1860?)

“We are very busy making Edward’s shirts, and I am proud to say that I am the neatest worker of the party.” ~ Jane Austen to her sister Cassandra, 1 Sept. 1796

Needlework was an essential skill for women of all classes during the Regency period, even though upper-class women would have spent more time on decorative work than on what was known as “plain sewing.” But as Jane Austen’s letter to her sister shows, even women of the gentry would have made their husbands’ and brothers’ shirts as well as their own shifts themselves. They would have also known how to mend clothes and how to make alterations.

Plain sewing was typically done in the morning before people would pay their morning calls. It was considered bad etiquette to do plain sewing in the company of visitors (unless they were close family). Instead, for such occasions, decorative needlework like embroidery was deemed suitable. Projects like embroidered shawls or slippers would also be made as gifts for friends and relatives.

Design for a Hand-screen, from The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine (1860?)

Design for a Hand-screen, from The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine (1860?)

Given the high presence of needlework in a woman’s life, it is perhaps not surprising that a lot of magazines targeted at women would include patterns — mostly decorative patterns in the early ladies’ magazines as they were targeted at an upper-class audience. Later, in the mid-19th century when the audience shifted to include middle-class women, several magazines also ran larger patterns for plain sewing.

Patterns (and sheet music) included in periodicals were meant to be used, and for that reason some periodicals like The Lady’s Magazine (launched in 1770) printed them on fold outs. This was good news for the first readers of those magazines — but really bad news for us today because many of those fold outs were indeed cut out and thus are lost to us.

This morning I stumbled across a project at the University of Kent, where three scholars study The Lady’s Magazine. When one of them, Jennie Batchelor, acquired a copy of the 1776 edition of the magazine with almost all of the fold-outs still intact, a new side project was born: The Great Lady’s Magazine Stitch-Off. They are uploading the patterns from the magazine on their website and are inviting people to use them for their own stitching projects and share pictures later on.

an example of a piece from the Great Lady's Magazine Stitch-Off

The Great Lady’s Magazine Stitch-off

Isn’t this fascinating? I think it’s a wonderful way to bring those old patterns back to life.

What about you? Do you enjoy needlework? Would you love to be able to make your own clothes? (That’s on my To Do list for the future , so far I’ve only managed a few embroidery projects as well as a few softies.)

Bizarrely shown on three cable channels, A&E, Lifetime, and History, the BBC’s  adaptation of War and Peace seems to have come and gone without much notice. And it deserves a lot of attention because this is one of the most dazzling series I’ve ever seen.

Here’s one reason why it’s so brilliant:

I had never read it before but was blown away with what a wonderful story it is. I thought it would be daunting and oppressive, but you just love the characters. It feels modern and fresh – funny and sexy, even. It’s mostly about these exciting young people on the threshold of their lives… really it’s the most fun I’ve had since Pride and Prejudice.

That’s Andrew Davies, who wrote the screenplay for the 1995 P&P and who tackled Tolstoy’s huge masterpiece, which tells the story of three interwoven families plus a zillion secondary characters, against the backdrop of the Napoleonic wars. More from this interview with him and the cast from Harpers Bazaar.

Everything about this is superb–the acting: it stars a lot of familiar faces, such as Lily James as Natasha who was pretty much wasted in Downton Abbey, and was great (but not as great as in this passionately nuanced role) in P&P&Z; Edward Norton, Jim Broadbent, Stephen Rea, Paul Dano, Gillian Anderson, and many more. There’s a list here at bbc.co.uk where the actors talk about their characters.

borodinoIt was filmed on location in Russia, Lithuania and Latvia, with lots of extras. There were extraordinary battle scenes (lots of blood), and a military advisor who’d seen action advised on these, so they had an amazing documentary sort of feel.

paul danoThe retreat from Moscow was  horrific and harrowing.

p039wyrg And the clothes, oh lordy the clothes (because if you visit this blog you know it all comes down to the clothes).  Since we’re on the subject of warfare, I’ve never seen such splendid uniforms, embroidered, gilded, tasseled, and their wearers bursting with testosterone.

g.andersonOne of the few costume fails was the designer’s attempt to express Gillian Anderson wearing an ooh la la French number. Really? Could the costume historians among us chime in? Because somehow, oh, I don’t know, I think this looks more high school prom than anything else. One shoulder?!!

Most of the clothes were gorgeous. War-_-Peace-lily_3539884b

 

To really get an idea of the clothes, and the quality of the production, you can see some selected scenes (but the longer clips can’t be viewed in the US) on the BBC’ s site:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p039wcdk/clips

You can take a quiz on your knowledge of the background of the book (I’m sad to say I failed miserably. Well, I did read it last in high school and that was a long, long time ago):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zw7cj6f

And here’s a truly swoonworthy excerpt of Natasha and Andrei (James Norton) dancing. He has truly humungous epaulettes.

Have you seen it? What did you think?

St John the Baptist, Inglesham. Box pews. Photo by Chris Gunns.

I had never heard of box pews until I started writing the Lively St. Lemeston series! However, they were much more common in England during the Regency than bench-style pews. Wikipedia explains:

Box pews provided privacy and allowed the family to sit together. In the 17th century they could include windows, curtains, tables and even fireplaces, and were treated as personal property that could be willed to legatees. Sometimes the paneling was so high it was difficult to see out, and the privacy was used as a cover for non-devotional activity….By the eighteenth century it became normal to install formal box pews instead of random personal constructions. This provided a more classic line to the church, although Sir Christopher Wren objected to pews in his churches. With the mid-19th century church reforms, box pews were generally swept away and replaced by bench pews. However a number of examples still remain in various churches throughout the United Kingdom.

Part of the church reforms involved changing how clergymen were paid—fees from renting pews provided a good chunk of their salaries previously, so they resisted replacing them with more efficient seating.

Here’s what box pews look like with people sitting in them:

St. Mary, Stelling Minnis, Kent. Photo by John Salmon.

Now, I assumed that these blocked your view of the rest of the congregation but that you could still see the pastor in his raised pulpit. But then I became very confused, because I discovered that the pulpits in Anglican churches of this period were usually not at the front of the church near the altar, but about half-way down the aisle! Did some box pews face backwards? Then how did people see when stuff happened at the altar…?

Apparently this is because I’ve only been to synagogues and Catholic churches. Someone (Ros Clarke, was it you?) explained to me that Anglican church services of the 18th and early 19th century de-emphasized the altar to separate themselves from Catholics. Anglican ministers are not priests! They are just the first among equal congregants. And you’re not even supposed to look at the vicar!

So yeah. Apparently part of the whole we’re-really-really-not-Catholic thing in Georgian Church of England services is that instead of having beautiful services full of pomp, you are supposed to stare at the wall so you don’t get distracted from pure spiritual thoughts. The box pew is actually designed to block your view. (As well as keep the heat in, obviously.) And indeed, they don’t all face the pulpit. Look, in this Rowlandson drawing you can clearly see that the pews in this Church face both directions, some towards and some away from the pulpit, and few people are looking at the preacher.

“Syntax Preaching,” 1813. Click to see it bigger. [source]


Of course, the pastor could still see you, which presumably motivated you to not goof off too obviously.

Box pews were such an inefficient use of space (every pew-renting or -owning family got their own and no one else could sit in it even if that family didn’t come to church that week) that in many churches, most of the congregation (the poor people) had to stand up in galleries built partway up on either side of the church. (While I found photos of Georgian-built church galleries equipped with bench-pews, I suspect these were in the minority at the time, but have a higher rate of survival because they are still usable today.)

For example, you can see the box pews and galleries in this early 19th century illustration of St. Mary’s in Horsham, then see the same church in this 1864 photograph, and then how it looks today after extensive renovations, with new pews and the galleries removed.

More images:

Hogarth print showing church seating (and standing)

St. Martin in the Field,” Rowlandson.

I also found this eighteenth century English evangelical church that was built backwards—the box pews for rich folk were on the second story and actually have their own separate entrances, while the poor people sat in benches on the ground floor.

(By the way, both my Lively St. Lemeston books are currently deep-discounted on Amazon: Sweet Disorder is 99¢ and True Pretenses is $1.99!)

Do you attend religious services? What kind of seating do you prefer?