Back to Top

Author Archives: Cara King

Dreadfully Important Survey here. Much more important than that census nonsense. The fate of the world hangs in the balance.

And the pictures here of handsome men are entirely relevant, and not there for any superficial, oh-aren’t-they-cute sort of reason.

1. If Horatio Hornblower (as played by Ioan Gruffudd) had a fistfight with Jack Aubrey (as played by Russell Crowe), who would win? And how much would you pay to watch them fight? How much more would you pay if they fought without their shirts on?

2. How about Jack Aubrey versus Captain Wentworth (as played by Ciaran Hinds)? Or would you be too afraid that Anne (as played by Amanda Root) would beat you to death with her umbrella for watching?

3. How about Wentworth versus Hornblower?

4. If the three captains actually fought, would that be like Regency mudwrestling?

5. Would Richard Sharpe (as played by Sean Bean) be able to wipe the floor with any of them?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Cara


Greetings! It is I, Bertram St. James, delighted to be here (as always). I know you Twenty-First Century folk do not much care to answer my questions, but I will nonetheless continue to ask them. Such as:

1. How can the United States of America call itself a republic, and yet have a queen? And what sort of a queenly name is Latifah, anyway?

2. Why would anyone pay eighty dollars to buy Obsession? Is not Obsession something one comes by naturally, and occasionally pays large sums to be rid of?

3. In my day, musicians had names like John and Nathaniel. Why do musicians today have names like N Sync and Eminem? And why do they play no instruments?

4. Speaking of musicians, if M.T.V. truly stands for “Musical TeleVision”, why does it play no music?

If anyone can explain to me the answers to these conundrums, I will be most grateful.

Yours as ever, and exquisite as always,

Bertie the Beau


William Cobbett, round about 1821, wrote:

The drink, which has come to supply the place of beer has, in general, been tea. It is notorious, that tea has no useful strength in it; that it contains nothing nutricious; that it, besides being good for nothing, has badness in it, because it is well known to produce want of sleep in many cases, and in all cases to shake and weaken the nerves.

Okay, so far, I slightly agree with Cobbett. Lack of sleep — yeah, if you drink more than you’re used to, or you drink late in the day, it can cause insomnia! But “shake and weaken the nerves”?

Cobbett continues:

It is, in fact, a weaker kind of laudanum, which enlivens for a moment and deadens afterwards.

Laudanum, which is opium dissolved in alcohol, being compared to tea??? Dude, what have YOU been drinking???

It is impossible to make a fire, boil water, make the tea, drink it, wash up the things, sweep up the fire-place and put all to rights again in a less space of time, upon an average, than two hours. . . . Needs there any thing more to make us cease to wonder at seeing labourers’ children with dirty linen and holes in the heels of their stockings?

There you have it, kiddies! The poor are wretched not for any of the commonly held reasons (e.g. because they are poor, or because they are lazy, or because no one who labours in the fields from dawn to dusk has time or energy to darn stockings) but because they drink too much TEA!!!!

You heard it here first.

Cara
Cara King, Tea Drinker Extraordinaire
for more weird period details, see www.caraking.com

Posted in Regency, Research | Tagged , | 7 Replies

I’m always interested in hearing what verbal pet peeves people have. (I’m alliterative today, I see! Please pardon my prankish prose.)

Some people don’t approve of a sentence like “Hopefully it will rain today” — they think that “hopefully” should stop being naughty and start behaving like a regular adverb. I think it’s fine and dandy, and this construction is extremely useful.

Some people don’t like splitting infinitives. I think such reservations are ridiculous, and were introduced into English at a very late date anyway, so don’t even have the weight of tradition behind them.

But just when I start to think I’m a language “liberal”, believing (as I do, for the most part) that language change is normal and healthy, and there is no “right” way to talk (or write), I come face to face with my, er, tastes. Tastes? Perhaps I should be honest and call them prejudices. There are just some words, spellings, phrases, and grammatical errors that drive me bonkers. So I will share some of my pet peeves here, and please share yours too! And if you want, do go ahead and tell me my pet peeves are ridiculous.

WORDS, SPELLINGS, AND PHRASES I UTTERLY LOATHE:

alot
alright
bobbed wire (or bobwire)
congradulations
could care less (for couldn’t care less, unless used sarcastically)
decimate (for exterminate — decimate means killing ten percent)
infer (when imply is meant)
lay (used for lie)
literally (when used as merely an intensifier; e.g. “Paris Hilton is literally American royalty”)
more unique, most unique

WORDS, USAGES, AND PHRASES THAT I KNOW ARE ACCEPTABLE NOW, BUT WHICH I HATE ANYWAY, AND AM WILLING TO JOIN THE ARMY OF RESISTANCE AGAINST:

comprise (in the modern American sense)
livid (meaning either red or angry)

Well, that’s all I can think of at the moment. What are your pet peeves? Do any of my pet peeves strike you as small-minded? Please share!

Cara
Cara King, www.caraking.com
MY LADY GAMESTER — out now from Signet!!!!

Posted in Reading, Writing | Tagged | 19 Replies

Recently, I played the character of Celia in a production of Shakespeare’s As You Like It. Celia and her cousin Rosalind are both daughters of dukes who, at the beginning of the play, live in luxury in a palace….until Rosalind is banished. Then Celia and Rosalind run away to the Forest of Arden — Celia disguised as a shepherdess, and Rosalind disguised as Celia’s little brother. Due to Celia’s smart thinking, they’ve brought their “jewels and their wealth” along with them, so they take care of sheep the same way Marie Antoinette did, and have a lot of fun along the way.

So, you’re thinking, what does this have to do with writing Regency romances? I’ll get to that in a moment. 🙂

I wore two costumes in this play. In the first picture here (photo credit: Jesse Sheldon), you see me in a very tight, binding, ouch-my-back-and-shoulders-hurt pale blue gown with a train, a gauze overskirt, trailing sleeves that almost reach the ground, (fake) fur trim, and (fake) pearls sewn all over the gown. I also have a heavy necklace, and a headpiece with a back veil that’s so long it almost touches the floor.

In the second picture here (photo credit: Jesse Sheldon), I am royalty pretending to be common. My green dress still has some trim, but it’s much simpler, and much more comfortable. I skip, I run, I lie down under a tree at one point. I can do pretty much anything but bend forward too far (this dress has a pretty low neckline). 🙂

What I found right away was that the first dress very much changed the way I moved. It kept me upright. It kept me from walking backwards (unless I carefully handled my train while doing so.) It very much restricted how I could move my arms (which I could hardly raise). And sitting on anything was problematic — the “pearls” which adorned the dress are everywhere, so sitting involved sitting on a lot of large beads — rather uncomfortable!

Once I got used to the restricted movement of this gown, I learned its advantages. The long trailing sleeves made smooth, graceful arm movements very dramatic, and highlighted any hand gestures beautifully. The train, sleeves, and long veil clearly stated that this was an important person — and a wealthy one. It was true conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure in one costume.

This leads me to think about the aristocratic ladies of the Regency period. I think one’s first impulse is to assume that all of those empire gowns were just so comfortable. But if you think about it, some of them were fussy…some had trains….some had huge headpieces with feathers…some were probably quite tight…and the stays certainly would have kept things like bending at the waist, and certain sorts of twisting, to a minimum…

So our heroines, particularly when dressed up for balls and such, probably moved and stood in a very different way from women who were servants or shopkeepers. Our elegant heroines would know that a small hand gesture or a graceful inclination of the head would speak volumes. Our young, tomboyish heroines might chafe against such restrictive clothing, and keep trying to do things they really shouldn’t (and getting in trouble.)

I’m sure none of this is new to most of you — but it’s the sort of thing that wearing a costume can make one ponder yet again! So what do you think the advantages and disadvantages of Regency costume were? What character or plot elements might a heroine’s costume cause, or reveal? Can you think of any dress-related plot points in Regencies that you’ve read?

All comments welcome!

Cara
Cara King, www.caraking.com
MY LADY GAMESTER — out now!

Posted in Research, Writing | Tagged , , | 8 Replies