Back to Top

Sharpe is here!

16 Comments


Oh, happy days! Sharpe has come to BBC America, Saturday nights at 9 pm, right after one of my favorite shows, Cash in the Attic.

Richard Sharpe, for those of you who may not know, is a fictional soldier in the Napoleonic War, created by Bernard Cornwell in a wonderful series of books, now spanning his early years with Wellington (then Wellesley) in India to beyond Waterloo. Sharpe is a marvelous character and Cornwell does a masterful job of giving us such rich detail about the war, so that you actually feel as if you are there, experiencing it with Sharpe.

The BBC Sharpe is played by Sean Bean, a very sigh-worthy choice.

Here is what Sean Bean’s Sharpe website http://www.shipofdreams.net/seanbean/sharpe/index.htm
says about the BBC series:

“The films are based on the Napoleonic campaign novels, and follow Sharpe and his “Chosen Men” (riflemen who are trusted crack shots). Sharpe has been promoted from the ranks, very unusual in its day, so he has the resentment of the “gentlemen” officers, and also that of the men, who assume he is no better than them. He is promoted after saving Wellington’s life, and is often sent on dangerous missions, along with the Chosen Men, due to his skills and bravery.

In the first film, Sharpe’s Rifles, we are introduced to the Riflemen who will become the Chosen Men, and Sharpe has to forge both respect and friendship with their soon-to-be Sergeant, Patrick Harper. The later films show how cohesive a fighting force these few men become, they think and act as one. The last film to be made was Sharpe’s Waterloo, depicting the great battle.”

I was first introduced to Sharpe through the Chivers Audiobook versions. William Gaminara narrated, and his deep, sexy voice truly enhanced the experience. I can still him say, “Sharpe swore.”

Sean Bean is not the Sharpe I visualized while listening to the audiobooks. In fact, almost all the cast of the BBC version are not the people Cornwall gave to my imagination. Furthermore, I think of the BBC shows as “Sharpe Lite.” The shows meld elements of several of the books into one story, but cannot give the richness of detail that is in the books. Another point–these were not high budget productions, so rather than a cast of thousands, you get a cast of….dozens.

Cornwell also is no romance novelist. His Sharpe is actually quite stupid in love, which is quite frustrating, but even unsatisfying romance elements were not enough to keep me from loving the books, the character, the life of the Napoleonic soldier.

And the Sharpe films, for all their not being the Sharpe of my imagination, are still wonderful. If you don’t get BBC America, you can also rent the Sharpe films from Netflix or purchase them online.

Enjoy!
Diane

You Be the Director!

18 Comments


As I’ve probably posted here before, I love movies. I’m by no means a Cinema Expert, like a friend of mine who was a Film Studies major. I don’t much like going to the movies with him because afterwards he always wants to talk about camera angles and filters and other techie stuff I don’t understand. I just want to talk about the characters. And the dialogue. And the costumes. All much too amateur for him. 🙂

Anyway, I do enjoy movies. So, I’ve been following the news out of Cannes this week. I love Cannes, too, for being so goofball and overblown and, well, so French. Who else boos movies? Not the Canadians, I bet. Toronto is probably far more civilized and not nearly as much fun. I’d like to know what all those actresses are thinking when it comes to their gowns, though. Kirsten Dunst, who I like because she’s usually so quirky and cute, gets herself up to look like Fraulein Maria at the abbey for her big premiere??? Monica Belluci in a Christmas tree skirt trimmed with feather dusters??? This is France, people! FRANCE! (Sofia Coppola sure had some great shoes, though).

But I digress. Fashion will always do that to me. I’m here to talk about movies. I think. One movie in particular–Marie Antoinette, the one reportedly just booed at Cannes by moviegoing members of the “petit bourgeois” (according to one French critic). Now, I haven’t seen this film–it doesn’t open here until October. I’ve only seen a trailer, and I don’t know why it was booed (though I’d dearly like to find out). I will definitely see it, for the elaborate costumes, Versailles, the reported neo-punk soundtrack, and because I’m always a sucker for overblown, pre-Revolutionary shenanigans. But I have some reservations, mostly about the casting. As I said, I do like Kirsten Dunst. But does “quirky” equal “Austrian princess in powdered wigs”? Just not sure. I also don’t know who I would cast instead, if it was MY movie. Maybe Anne Hathaway? Or Emmy Rossum, if she wasn’t so tall?

Anyway, here is your task, if you choose to accept it. Let’s imagine we’re making a film about, say, the life of Byron (forget the one from the BBC a couple years ago–ours will be better!). Who would you cast in the lead parts? As Byron? (I would vote for Johnny Depp, I think. Or Keanu Reeves, if he had the acting skills to equal his looks, darn it). Caro Lamb? (Now there would be a part for Kirsten Dunst!). The Shelleys? Annabelle Milbanke? Lady Melbourne?

Serious and/or goofy answers all happily accepted! As are suggestions for Marie Antoinette. Or any other movie you choose to make. YOU are the director now! I may even give away a free book to the most, er, creative ideas…

Soul Searching

5 Comments


I like my art over the top. My favorite movies, actors, books, music, paintings and couture all share the common element of being pushed further than it might seem possible. Recently I found something I thought epitomized what pushed something in my opinion from “good” to “special.”

Nick Cave is most famous for being a musician, but he is also a writer, most recently penning the script for The Proposition starring Guy Pearce. I bought a book of his writings recently–song lyrics as well as fragments of short stories and an essay or two–and found something he wrote about the German band
Einsturzende Neubauten:

“They are simply a ‘great’ band–and I use the word in the classical sense. To me, the essence of their greatness does not lie in their unorthodox attitude toward making music–rather it is based on a fundamentally orthodox premise. What makes Einsturzende Neubauten great in my eyes is the same thing that makes Johnny Cash–or the Velvet Underground, John Lee Hooker, Suicide, Elvis, Dylan, Leadbelly, The Stooges–great. They are all innovators but what sets Hank Williams apart from the bulk of his contemporaries is the same thing that sets Einsturzende Neubauten apart from the huge, faceless morass that modern New Wave music has become. Through their own hard work, by steadfast lack of compromise, through the pain of true self-expression, through a genuine love of their medium, they have attained a sound which is first authentic, and which is utterly their own. But not for the sole purpose of being different. They are a group which has developed its own special language for one reason–to give voice to their souls.”

My goal, when I write, is to give voice to my soul, even though that might sound pretentious coming from someone who writes fairly light romance; the means here, the motivation, is more important than the end. I might never feel as if I have truly developed my own ‘special language,’ as Cave says; but I can strive for that goal. No matter what genre an author writes in, in what style, I think the reader can tell when a soul has been given voice. Your favorite soul vocalists are no doubt different than mine (and I’m not talking Aretha). But what they share is an authentic sound.

What do you think makes a great artist?

Thanks–

Megan
www.meganframpton.com

Have we created our own cult?

5 Comments


There were four-and-twenty virgins come down from Inverness

And when the night was ended there were four-and-twenty less…
trad. rude song
As long as the plots keep arriving from outer space,
I’ll go on with my virgins.
Barbara Cartland
This topic started off as a conversation with my buddy Pam Rosenthal as part of our meanderings on our workshop at the 2006 Beau Monde Conference. (Yes, the workshop is called Pam and Janet Evening. It’s on writing erotic historicals.)
Virgins.
A dime a dozen in romance-land.
Why?
Granted, they were around. Virginity was by implication an important part of the business deal that upper-class marriage was even in the Regency period–the groom wanted to be sure that his heirs would truly be his, and not the in-laws’ third footman’s. Yet we still have extraordinary plot twists to ensure that the heroine is untouched when the Big Bang occurs–virgin widows, husbands who had to rush off to take part in Waterloo (sorry, honey, not before the big game), couples who didn’t want to marry and so therefore didn’t want to…you know. Or the hero turns out to be her first and last, with diversions in between (guilty as charged). And not just in historicals, where the concept of a virgin heroine is justified, but all through the genre.
Consider also the typical defloration/consummation, where after some minor carnage, the heroine gets to Nirvana with very little effort (and snorts of disbelief from me)…and despite the bloodbath, they keep doing it. Or, we’re told, if she has had previous partners, there (1) weren’t many, and (2) it wasn’t that good, so therefore she holds blank slate status.
Yes, I know these are huge overstatements and I can come up with exceptions too, but why do these conventions exist? Is it the only way we can show that this is IT, the Real Thing, the Big Banana?
Despite the boom in erotic romance and erotica, why are we still so wary of a true depiction of female sexuality?
Thoughts, anyone?

When does time run out for a book?

11 Comments

I used to finish every book I started. I think it was partly due to a strong desire for closure, but the other thing that motivated me was artistic sympathy. Even if I really didn’t like the beginning of the book, I kept reading, thinking it might get better.

I still feel that artistic sympathy on opening a new book; I always hope I am going to enjoy it. But things have changed since I became a mother and a writer (just about simultaneously). I have accumulated an enormous TBR list, full of good bets from favorite authors and kindred spirits met at writers’ conferences and the like.
I’ve finally decided that it’s just not worth the time to finish a book I’m not enjoying, when it’s so easy to find something more to my taste. Sometimes I’ll give up after a few chapters, or even a few pages.

Now I feel like I’m striking doom into the hearts of any published or aspiring writers reading this. Because we all want readers to keep going and get to the “good parts”. (Though we try to make them all “good parts”.)

But let me clarify. I’m not really that hard a sell. I do finish and enjoy most books I start.

Things I am NOT picky about:

  • Slow beginnings. If the characters are interesting, I’ll read on and I’ve never been disappointed. Good characters eventually get the plot moving.
  • Very action-oriented beginnings that may be confusing or weak on characterization (too much going on, too many characters). Early chapters are a bear to write, and I’m sympathetic about that. It usually settles out as I read on.

Where I draw the line:

  • Simplistic or unpleasant hero or heroine. Tortured and flawed are great; petty and small or disgustingly perfect are not.
  • Seriously purple prose (a little flowery is OK).
  • Confusing point of view usage. I like books that make me think, but not ones that have me rereading just to figure out who is talking.
  • Extreme historical errors that indicate the author had no clue and didn’t care. Ex., a prologue I read that implied the British were fighting the Portuguese during the Peninsular War.

I do wonder how long other people give a book. Do you always finish? How far do you read before you give up? What makes you give up on a book? What will keep you going even if you’re not quite sold?

Elena
LADY DEARING’S MASQUERADE, an RT Reviewers’ Choice Award nominee
www.elenagreene.com

P.S. The 18th century watch in the picture is available at www.anthonygreen.com.

BESbswyBESbswyBESbswyBESbswy