Back to Top

Author Archives: Cara King


I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s been rushing to finish reading her Rita books! There’s definitely a difference between reading a 400-page novel and reading fifty pages of manuscript (as one does for the Golden Heart Contest, which is what I’ve judged in years past.) 🙂

So here are my random opinions on judging today:

JUDGES SHOULD, when reading an unpublished writer’s manuscript, just read it the way they would read any published piece of fiction. When reading a bought novel, one doesn’t stop on page 2 to analyze the goals, motivations, and conflicts, so don’t do it now! At least not on the first read-through.

JUDGES SHOULD NOT become too rule-bound. Nor should they let their tastes or prejudices overwhelm their judgment.

I THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between serious historical errors and minor ones, and I think a judge should take this into account. Certainly, every historical author and every judge will have his or her own opinions on which errors are egregious, which serious, and which unimportant….and here are a few opinions of mine. (By the way, in the interest of discretion, I will point out that none of the following refers to any books I am currently judging!) 🙂

ERRORS THAT BOTHER ME LITTLE OR NOT AT ALL:

1. If a character uses a word in 1810 that has its earliest OED cite as 1830, that doesn’t bother me. (Words were often spoken long before they were written.) An exception, of course, is a word like “mesmerize” which has a clear and sudden origin (a friend of mine once saw that word used in an Elizabethan-set novel…)

2. If characters are not always wearing their gloves and hats when they ought, that rarely bothers me. (I have seen experts almost come to blows over when and if ladies removed their hats when paying calls, so I know the subject has its murky areas!)

3. If an Almack’s patroness is referred to as a Patroness in a year she wasn’t, or if Wellington is called a duke back before he was a duke, or if characters use candles when they should use oil lamps, that doesn’t bother me at all.

4. If Almack’s is having balls every day of the week.

ERRORS THAT DO BOTHER ME, AT LEAST SOMEWHAT:

— basic card game errors (such as piquet being written as a four-person card game, or a character who’s so good at faro that he beats every else); cards are very easy to research, so I think every writer who uses them should know the basics of any games to which she or he refers
— basic carriage errors bother me, though not hugely: i.e. I think the writer should know whether a carriage was owner-driven or coachman-driven, whether it was open, and approximately how many it could seat
— Mistaking a major inland city for a seaside town
— Regency gentlemen wearing “pants”
— Regency misses who have clearly read 21st century sex manuals

ERRORS THAT BOTHER ME A GREAT DEAL:
— when Sir John Doe is occasionally referred to as Sir John but much more often as Sir Doe
— knighthoods being inherited titles
— Regency gentlemen driving buggies through London
— heroes who run away to sea at age eighteen and buy a commission in the navy

So which errors bother you? Which errors don’t bother you?

And which of the above errors do you think I should start caring more or less about??? 🙂

All opinions welcome!

Cara (off to read!!!)

Recently, I’ve read a few too many romances where the heroine basically falls in love with the hero because he’s so hot. She doesn’t necessarily think in those words (in some of the books, she’s a Regency or Victorian or Medieval woman), but there’s not much going on between her and the hero except constant physical attraction, the desire to act on it, the desire not to act on it, the shock of acting on it, the guilt or elation of acting on it, and oh boy, those muscles! Et cetera et cetera ad infinitum…

Seems to me, if that’s all love were about, all the women in the country would be in love with Russell Crowe and would live out the rest of their lives in misery because they couldn’t have him. Do I want to read a 300-page book about how my next door neighbor is totally in love with Russell, and loves his abs, and loves his legs, and really really really wants him to touch her??? Um, no, sorry.

But that’s how some of these books I’ve read recently have struck me. The heroine and hero in the book have no greater emotional connection, no more true bonding, no more actual understanding of each other as human beings, than would my neighbor have with Russell.

What do I like in a romance? I like that moment when, as a reader, your heart melts. When you just love the hero to death, and want him to be happy so badly, and know the heroine can truly make him that happy, and he her as well. I love that moment when the hero does something that’s so kind, or so true, or so real, that your brain and heart shout YES!!! Yes, that’s it. That’s love.

After all, what’s to stop my neighbor from changing her taste to Antonio Banderas, or Josh Holloway, or Naveen Andrews tomorrow? What’s inspiring about that? Sure, they’re gorgeous to look at (as these pictures prove), but I can’t really believe in a relationship based on nothing but the physical. The way I see it, that’s not a relationship . . . and it just isn’t that interesting to read about.

Recently, I was watching the TV show House, in which the seriously cranky Doctor House (the inimitable Hugh Laurie) was hoping that his old flame, Stacy (Sela Ward) would come back to him (despite his unending bad temper, and an ego the size of the national debt). And suddenly, there was one of those moments. The two were waiting in an airport on business for a delayed flight, and when Stacy sat down, she found that House had gotten her a cup of coffee… And not just any coffee, but the kind she liked, done the way she liked… That little moment, showing that even years after their relationship ended, he cared enough about her to remember how she liked her coffee, and the casual, comfortable way he got it for her without any show or fuss, really melted my heart.

So… What moment in a book, TV show, or movie melted your heart? Is there a scene where a character’s action really touched you? How about something a character said? Or a moment or moments that made you want to shout, Yes! That’s it! That’s love.

Please share!!!

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

Posted in Reading, Writing | Tagged | 15 Replies

We at Risky Regencies are always delighted to know which posts you, our blog visitors, find most interesting here — or what you’d like to see here in the future. At the moment, the best we can do is judge based on the number of comments a post receives — so if a post gets a lot of comments, we assume that our visitors found it interesting…and if a post doesn’t, we may not make similar posts in the future.

However, we also know that there are some posts that our visitors may enjoy quite a bit, but that do not elicit comments! But we have a hard time telling the difference between posts you enjoy but don’t see the need to comment on, and posts that don’t really interest you.

So, for example, the fact that Bertie’s last two posts received only three comments each, none of which were from visitors to the blog, might indicate that people aren’t really interested in poor Bertie’s hapless posts. (Or it might not.)

Similarly, the fact that my two “what dirty bits did Kemble cut out of Shakespeare” posts also received no visitor comments might seem to indicate that our blog readers aren’t interested in Regency Shakespeare…. Then again, it might just be that our visitors felt the posts did not lend themselves to comments.

In other words, do you really want me to stop posting Bertie’s clueless questions? And the naughty bits from Shakespeare? Do you want more talk about Jane Austen movie hunks, or about Georgette Heyer novels, or about Horatio Hornblower? Do you want to hear more about the writing process, about how we create our novels, or how the publishing process works? Are you interested in hearing about what we’re working on now? Do you want to discuss your favorite romance heroes, or the romance cliches you hate the most, or what you require in a heroine? Do you want more Regency history info here? Do you want to discuss your favorite Regencies, and get recommendations that may lead to new favorites?

Do let us know!

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

As I mentioned in last Tuesday’s post, I’m currently in a production of Shakespeare’s AS YOU LIKE IT. Which, of course, makes this the perfect time for me to go over John Philip Kemble’s version of the play — which was the version used at the Theatre Royal Covent Garden during the Regency, and was also published and sold (for eighteen pence a copy).

So, what changes did the great actor/manager/director (pictured here) make to Shakespeare’s text?

I was delighted to find that the answer is, very few!

Let’s start with what Kemble left in. The following are words and phrases that Kemble clearly thought acceptable for general audiences to hear and read: damn’d, damnation, bastard, foul, slut, puking, belly, stomach, body, bawdry, udders, country copulatives, virgin, maid

The most vulgar speech that I could find that he left in was said by Touchstone the Fool, who is pretending to scold a shepherd for the immorality of his profession:

That is another simple sin in you: to bring the ewes and the rams together, and to offer to get your living by the copulation of cattle: to be bawd to a bell-wether; and to betray a she-lamb of a twelvemonth, to a crooked-pated, old, cuckoldy ram, out of all reasonable match. If thou be’st not damn’d for this, the devil himself will have no shepherds…

Some of the cuts (most of them quite short — a line here or there) were, as far as I can tell, just for length, or occasionally to cut an obscure passage. Some, though, were probably for the indelicacy of the topic, or the vulgarity of the phrasing — but even this seems not to be invariable. Touchstone talks a fair amount about horns (a constant joke in Shakespeare’s plays, where all men seem to eternally fear being cuckolded), but a couple lines of Rosalind’s joking about horns was cut. Perhaps in this case, the jokes themselves were not too warm, but the character of Rosalind was now thought to be too refined to make such jokes?

And yet Rosalind did keep some of her suggestive lines. Kemble left in the passage which reads:

ROSALIND: … till you met your wife’s wit going to your neighbor’s bed.
ORLANDO: And what wit could wit have to excuse that?
ROSALIND: Marry, to say,–she came to seek you there.

On the other hand, Kemble cut the passage:

ROSALIND: I prithee take the cork out of thy mouth, that I may drink thy tidings.
CELIA: So you may put a man in your belly?

Other passages that were presumably cut for indelicacy include:

CELIA: You will cry in time, in despite of a fall. (This is a double joke, referring to both sex and childbirth)

TOUCHSTONE: He that sweetest rose will find, must find love’s prick and Rosalind.

Also cut was a longish passage in which Touchstone and the shepherd compare a shepherd’s greasy hands (due to handling ewes’ “fells”) and a courtier’s hands, perfumed with civet (“the very uncleanly flux of a cat.”)

Kemble invariably cut “God” (e.g. “I thank God” and “God save you”) and changed it to “heaven” (so: “I thank heaven” and “Heaven save you”) — so I presume this was consistently done on the Regency stage.

Well, that’s AS YOU LIKE IT as Kemble liked it! Hope you liked it too…

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

Posted in Regency, Research | Tagged , | 4 Replies


Just dashing in for a moment, during a missive from the sponsor, with a question or two.

1) Where does the fast restaurant entitled “Mac Donalds” get its apples? I bought their apple salad and forgot to eat it. Several hours have now passed, but the apples have not turned brown in the least, even at the cut edges. Are these pieces not apple after all, but some variety of still life artwork?

2) Is Mr. Mac Donald related to Mr. Mac Nugget? How about Mayor Mac Cheese?

Enough questions for one day . . . Back to my regularly scheduled Tele Vision!

Bertie the Beau