Back to Top

Category: Reading

Posts in which we talk about reading habits and preferences

Our guest blogger today is Deb Barnhart, a long time friend and fellow romance reader. I asked her to tell us why she reads Regencies and her answer follows. But I also encourage you to check out her Pinterest site to see some of the lovely Regency images she has collected. Thanks Deb for the kind words and your thoughtful response

Regency historicals touch my romantic soul at its deepest level. Whenever I enter that time period through the imagination of favorite writers, like Mary Blayney, Loretta Chase, Cathy Maxwell and Lorraine Heath, there is a level of intimacy present that I don’t find in contemporaries or other historicals.
For me, that early 19th century time frame offers so much more freedom in character and story where it runs the gamut of dark to light, sweet to sexy, drama to comedy. I love that kind of variety when I’m looking for a good read and Regency authors always provide it.7724e76dd128d1585b1595bd6676919a

Of course, Jane Austen is still a favorite of mine and Georgette Heyer is always good company, but I have read every one of Mary Blayney’s Pennistan series and the Braedons with the same level of joy and pleasure. Loretta Chase’s LORD OF SCROUNDRELS could not be sexier or more fun to read, unless I’m reading Janet Mullaney. I recently reread THE RAKE by Mary Jo Putney and found it as fresh as when I first read it.

I am such a Regency fan girl. The authors I mentioned, and the many I have not, have seen me through good times and bad. Regencies have allowed me to experience the Peninsular War, weekends in English country houses and evenings in infamous gaming hells. But from my very first Regency, what I love most about them is the romance. I adore stories about Dukes who find love for the first time and ladies who want nothing to do with it.

I love happy endings and Regencies do that best of all. They sweep me away from whatever crisis I am experiencing and into a past where pelisses are all the rage, women are feisty, love is always new and happy is ever after.th1T6QY5LS

Since you read this blog you read Regencies. So tell me was it Jane Austen, Georgette Heyer or Regency history generally that inspired you to write or read that genre?

Is there a Regency that you have read that has a special memory for you personally as a reader or a author?

Lady Em's Indiscretion - New CoverI’m hopeful that I’ll be able to get back to writing soon, and when I do, I’ll probably work on a novella. I haven’t had anything “new” out since last April, when I reissued a heavily revised version of Lord Langdon’s Kiss, so I’d like to get more work out there as quickly as I can. That means novellas, in this case, a prequel and sequel to Lady Em’s Indiscretion.

It takes me a long time to develop a full-length book—more than just 3-4 times the length it takes to write a novella. It takes me longer to deal with the complexities of more characters and subplots. Long books are still my absolute favorite both to read and write.

Novellas are fun to write, though, and they go more quickly, not having all of the complications I mentioned above. I enjoy reading them, too. Since they usually focus more closely on the hero and heroine, there’s a certain intimacy to well-written novellas, kind of like chamber music compared to orchestral music. A friend also called my novellas “bon-bons”, which is another fun way to look at it.

However, I’ve had a few readers complain about the length. Even at 99 cents, they were expecting a full-length novel and apparently did not notice the word “novella”, which is on the cover and also in the description along with a word count. I’ve heard this happens to other authors, and we’re all stumped as to how to make the length more clear. I suspect there are readers who buy inexpensive titles on impulse and don’t know what they bought until they start reading.

I’ve also heard of complaints if the digital version of a novella is priced more than 99 cents. Since I personally know the time and work that goes into a novella, I wouldn’t balk at a well-written novella being priced at $2.99 or $3.99, especially from an established author. But of course every reader has the right to make purchasing choices based on her own budget and preferences.

My own novellas are currently priced at 99 cents. My strategy has been to encourage new readers to take a chance on me, in the hope that they might go on to buy my full-length books. However, Amazon’s pricing tool is encouraging me to price my novellas at $2.99. It’s also telling me to use the same price for my full-length Regencies.  That doesn’t seem right to me and would probably annoy readers, so I’ll always price my novellas less than my full-length books.

As for full-length books, I don’t generally want to support the notion that they should have a regular price of 99 cents. I make an exception for introductory prices and special sales. That is the beauty of digital publishing—one can afford to do that—but full length books are such a huge project that I think they should have a regular price that reflects the work that went into them. Even though I’m tickled when a reader tells me she stayed up and read a whole book in one night, I can’t help remembering that it took me a year or so to write it!

What do you think? Do you prefer novellas, long, meaty books, or something in between? Any opinions on e-book pricing?

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

A day late–or possibly even more, because no one really knows the date, but happily April 23 is also St. George’s Day, by a fortuitous coincidence. So I thought I’d make a stab at the huge topic of Shakespeare during the Regency, a time of both revival and suppression.

Essentially people have been tinkering with Shakespeare before his ink was barely dry, and the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were no exception. There was a great Shakespeare revival in the period, thanks in part to larger theaters, not to mention larger than life performers:

The Kembles were statuesque: the two factors, which, according to James Boaden in 1826, caused Sarah Siddons to change her style were the larger theaters and ‘her delight in statuary, which directed her attention to the antique and made a remarkable impression upon her as to simplicity of attire and severity of attitude … Hazlitt thought Kemble was ‘the very still life and statuary of the stage … an icicle upon the bust of tragedy.’ Such frigidity was especially absurd off stage: a contemporary remembered Kemble at breakfast looking as if he had eaten ‘a poached curtain rod’. Read more

siddons_katherineMrs. Siddons made the role of Queen Katherine in Henry VIII one of her signature roles. Henry VIII also plays a pivotal role in Austen’s Mansfield Park–Austen came from a family that loved the theater, performed amateur productions, and almost certainly read Shakespeare aloud to each other. The seductive Henry Crawford reads aloud from the play and Edmund becomes jealous:

Edmund watched the progress of her attention, and was amused and gratified by seeing how she gradually slackened in the needlework, which at the beginning seemed to occupy her totally: how it fell from her hand while she sat motionless over it, and at last, how the eyes which had appeared so studiously to avoid him throughout the day were turned and fixed on Crawford—fixed on him for minutes, fixed on him, in short, till the attraction drew Crawford’s upon her, and the book was closed, and the charm was broken.

Crawford elsewhere in the book states that Shakespeare “… is a is a part of an Englishman’s constitution. His thoughts and beauties are so spread abroad that one touches them every where, one is intimate with him by instinct.” Edmund agrees, saying that “No doubt, one is familiar with Shakespeare …from one’s earliest years. His celebrated passages are quoted by every body; they are in half the books we open, and we all talk Shakespeare,…”

boydellShakespeare was big business. In 1786, engraver and publisher John Boydell began an ambitious project to foster a school of English history painters and publish an illustrated edition of Shakespeare and a folio of engravings based on commissioned paintings. The Boydell Shakespeare Gallery in London enjoyed enormous popularity during the 1790s.

Here’s an engraving from the collection by Robert Smirke:

smirke_sa1I have to admit I had trouble guessing what play this could possibly be. It’s an illustration of infancy (the infant, mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms) from As You Like It, beautifully translated to the late eighteenth century. A very well-dressed lady is visiting the foster family of her latest child, but I’m not sure whether it’s her child or that of the woman kneeling in the foreground. I love the details of this–the cottage loaf on the table, the poor but honest foster family, and the dog barking at the black servant outside.

I think the two examples from Mansfield Park sum up the contemporary attitude toward Shakespeare–our playwright, but also an artist who can be disturbing or unwholesome. And that brings us to the sorry case of King Lear. In 1681, Nahum Tate rewrote–or “Reviv’d with Alterations,” as he put it–the play as The History of King Lear for the sophisticated patrons of London’s theaters. Notably, he gave it a happy ending, provided Cordelia with a love interest, dropped the role of the Fool, and so on. You can read his description of the changes and the whole text here. Incredibly, this was the version in use until 1823 when Edmund Kean restored the tragic ending, although Tate’s version remained in use throughout the nineteenth century. But performance of the play was banned entirely from 1810 until after the death of George III, because the story of a failing king succumbing to madness and being the head of a very dysfunctional family was a little too close for comfort. You can read more at The Regency Redingcote and What’s It All About Shakespeare.

And then, bless his heart, there was Dr. Bowdler who found that reading Shakespeare aloud to his family could be a little icky, apparently something that didn’t bother the Austens. He censored as he went (I used to do much the same when reading the Care Bears to my toddler daughter) and then had the bright idea of publishing his cleaned up version in 1818: THE FAMILY SHAKSPEARE, in which nothing is added to the Original Text; but those Expressions are omitted which cannot with propriety be read aloud.

What’s your favorite Shakespeare play or movie version? Or have you seen a particularly good production recently?

DangerousSecrets_600x900Today we welcome back Caroline Warfield, who’s here to talk about her most recent release Dangerous Secrets and she’s giving away a copy of her first book Dangerous Works (Kindle/US only). The winner will be chosen from those who participate by adding a comment or by other means (see below).

Buy the book:
US Kindle
UK Kindle

Canada Kindle
Euro Kindle

View the Pinterest Storyboard

And now let’s talk to Caroline…

I loved the setting of the book–Rome after the Napoleonic wars. Do you have any stories about your research trip there?

Rome to me meant Cicero and Caesar growing up.  I took Latin for four years in high school. I remember winning some sort of medal in a competition.  Rome also meant church and on my first trip there I expected churches and ruins.  I discovered a complex city with layers of history.  (In some cases literally layers such as the excavations below San Clemente that cover 1500 years of history)

It was the Keats/Shelley museum that made me think perhaps I could set a English regency story in an Italian city.  I sat by the Spanish Steps and thought, “What if I put an impoverished hero here?”  The art of the Grand Tour made it clear that the upper classes went to Rome in droves in the early nineteenth century. I knew I was on to something. One of the challenges of writing to the Regency Period is keeping it fresh. I think Rome helped me do that.  Traveling there twice enabled me to envision it.

Any advice on writing children as secondary characters? (I think you did it rather well!)

Thank you! I rather like Isabella, Nora’s niece, myself. I love bright verbal children.  I don’t know that I understand the process of creating them on the page, however.  I suspect one tool in the writer’s collection has to be a good ear. If you listen carefully to how people talk and act it is easier to breathe life into your characters. That is particularly true with children.  If you sit and talk with them you get a feel for how their minds work.  I like the scenes where Isabella holds court after the kidnapping. She loves the spotlight.

Did you find writing a book that’s part of a series but also a standalone difficult? How do you keep track of everything?

I don’t think the standalone part is difficult. Each individual has a unique story.  The challenge, as you know, is managing the characters across several books. I began with a clear back-story for the characters, but I have not done a good job of tracking them book-to-book. I confess to being a pantser. Planning plot doesn’t come naturally.  I’ve had to do some rapid searches through whole manuscripts when a question or two arose. I’m currently indexing them all in preparation for planning a new series.  As an added complication, the stories are being published out of chronological order forcing me to be particularly careful.  Because they are standalone, I was able to submit some that were finished early even though they were out of order series-wise.

Who would you cast as hero/heroine in the movie version of the book?

I pictured several actors before settling on Ewan McGregor for Jamie. He has the right look and feel for the story.  For Nora? That one is tougher.  She needs the right combination of vulnerability and spunk. I think I would choose Michelle Williams. She would convey Nora’s longing for a child effectively and still stand up to the forces around her.

What’s the last great book you read?

“Great” is an intimidating word! Lately I’ve been enamored of C.S. Harris’s Regency mysteries.  I’m also reading my way through Grace Burrowes’s entire body of work. The sheer volume in a short period of time is stunning, stunning because the quality is so high.

Tell us a bit about your next release.

Dangerous Weakness has been scheduled for a September 2015 release.  It takes place in 1818 and tells the story of the Viscount Glenaire.  He is the managing brother in Dangerous Works and interfering friend of Dangerous Secrets. He also plays a similar role in a prequel holiday novella I have in process.  Cold, aloof, convinced he could fix anything for those he cares about; I knew I needed to do more than muss his hair.  This boy needed to get knocked down.

It begins, “If women were as easily managed as the affairs of state—or the recalcitrant Ottoman Empire—Richard Hayden, Marquess of Glenaire, would be a happier man. As it was the creatures made hash of his well-laid plans and bedeviled him on all sides.” The heroine leads him a merry chase that involves London, Constantinople, the Sultan’s Seraglio and some Barbary pirates.

Ooh! And … Carolyn wants to know:

Those of us that love the Regency era read many books set in that world. The author’s greatest challenge is finding ways to tell original stories.  What tropes do you like most in a Regency novel? Which do you miss when if they are gone?

a Rafflecopter giveaway

In Regency times, would you have been a “bluestocking”? How many times have you read about (or written) a heroine who either considered herself one, or was warned in no uncertain terms by her mother/aunt/sponsor or best friend against becoming one?

blue_stockingNot too long ago I was invited to join a group of Regency authors calling themselves The Bluestocking League. (A lot of authors are finding it wise to band together to help promote each other’s work.) We haven’t been very active yet, but we discovered soon after naming ourselves that another group of authors had recently formed a group called the Bluestocking Belles. You see? Bluestockings are back!! So it seemed timely to take a look at what was originally an 18th century women’s society, and in the Regency became a (derisive) slang term for educated women with intellectual interests –who might, after all, threaten the social order!

The 18th century, “The Age of Enlightenment,” earned the name because ideas and intellect flourished during the period. While women had few rights, two things they –could- do (and were expected to do) were socialize and engage in the arts. Salons were popular, and hostesses angled to have the most illustrious leaders of culture and literature as guests. The London salons hosted by the well-to-do and well-educated friends

Elizabeth Montagu

Elizabeth Montagu

Elizabeth Montagu (1718-1800), Elizabeth Vesey (c.1715-91) and Frances Boscawen (1719-1805) attracted some of the greatest intellectual minds of the times, such as the writer Samuel Johnson, and artists Francis Reynolds and her brother Sir Joshua Reynolds. By mid-century these get-togethers evolved into a loosely organized network, kind of a “women’s club” that offered more than intimate gatherings for conversation, supplying mutual support, friendship and patronage for a growing pool of writers, artists, and intellectuals. Writers Hannah More and Fanny Burney, poet Anna Seward, and artist Angelica Kaufmann were regulars among many others in later years. The women, and their male guests, also advocated for education and explored options for civic and social improvements.

Most of the women portrayed as young Greek Muses in this group portrait by Richard Samuel were Bluestockings. Singer Elizabeth Ann Sheridan is in the centre. Artist Angelica Kauffman sits at the easel with writer/poet Elizabeth Carter and poet Anna Letitia Barbauld behind her. The five at right are (L-R) historian Catharine Macaulay, hostess & literary critic Elizabeth Montagu, and writer Elizabeth Griffith (all seated), and standing behind them, writers Hannah More and Charlotte Lennox. Some were much older than shown by the time the picture was exhibited in 1779. (Montagu was 61.)

Most of the women portrayed as young Greek Muses in this group portrait by Richard Samuel were Bluestockings. Singer Elizabeth Ann Sheridan is in the centre. Artist Angelica Kauffman sits at the easel with writer/poet Elizabeth Carter and poet Anna Letitia Barbauld behind her. The five at right are (L-R) historian Catharine Macaulay, hostess & literary critic Elizabeth Montagu, and writer Elizabeth Griffith (all seated), and standing behind them, writers Hannah More and Charlotte Lennox. Some were much older than shown by the time the picture was exhibited in 1779. (Montagu was 61.)

The story of exactly how the network acquired the affectionately applied name of the Bluestocking Society, or the Bluestocking Circle, is debated. Blue wool stockings were commonly worn for informal or daytime dress then, with white or black silk reserved for evening or more formal occasions. The informal style (and the cross-class nature) of the salon gatherings was unprecedented and set a new style for socializing. One version of the story holds that Mrs Vesey (or Mrs Montagu), inviting the botanist Benjamin Stillingfleet to attend a salon, assured the man who had given up polite society that he was welcome to come “in his blue stockings.” Another version says Stillingfleet simply showed up wearing them. OTOH, the French version of the term (bas bleu) had actually already been in use since the 1500s. At any rate, the group adopted the name with pride. The network expanded well beyond London, and probably peaked during the 1780-90’s, when Elizabeth Montagu opened her new Portman Square home for meetings, and was hailed by Johnson as “the Queen of the Blues”. Hannah More’s poem “Bas Bleu, or the Conversation” was published in 1789.

Typically, though, as the term “bluestocking” became widely accepted as a tag for an intellectual woman, it also began to be perverted into derisive slang, belittling the very values it once stood for. The original Bluestockings were dying off at the start of the Regency, and their supportive network had suffered setbacks such as the loss of friendship between Montagu and Johnson, a scandal over patronage and money involving Montagu, More, and the poet Anna Yearsley, and later, scandalous lifestyle choices made by members like Macaulay. Ridicule replaced admiration in the eyes of society –Byron scorned them and Rowlandson did a cartoon, “The Breaking Up of the Bluestocking Club” published in 1815. In the Regency, to be a bluestocking was considered tantamount to declaring spinsterhood and rejecting society. rowlandson-bluestockings

The original Bluestockings were the feminists of their day, ahead of their time in many of their ideas, but especially in valuing the female mind. Their moniker shows up these days in all sorts of ways, from the name of bookstores and a play, to a week-long celebration of women in education at UQ in Australia. I’m happy to be among women ready to reclaim the term and put it back into its original perspective and meaning. So, are you a bluestocking, too?

If you want to read more, there’s a great article connected to an exhibit at London’s National Portrait Gallery: http://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/exhibitions/2008/brilliant-women/the-bluestockings-circle.php, and another with great detail at https://bluestockingssociety.wordpress.com/the-blue-stocking-history/.

Also, there’s a book: Biographical Sketches of Principal Bluestocking Women, by Anna Miegon. I want to read it now! There’s also a collection of essays: Reconsidering the Bluestockings, by Nicole Pohl & Betty A. Schellenberg, and much more, of course. I think the original Bluestockings would be pleased to see how far we women have come, don’t you? Although perhaps dismayed that it took as long as it has, and that we still have more to achieve. What do you think? Please comment!