Back to Top

Category: Reading

Posts in which we talk about reading habits and preferences

Occasionally I find a book that’s so extraordinary, so wonderful, that all I want to do is read to the neglect of all else. Yet at the same time I can’t bear the thought of coming to the end, and want to take my time savoring every phrase and sentence.

atkinsonI’ve been fortunate enough to read two such books in the past couple of weeks. The first one, , by Kate Atkinson, I borrowed from the library for the kindle, and then decided to buy it. In hardback. It was massively on sale but I knew this was something I’d keep and that this was too good for the kindle. It’s astonishing. I reached a new level of appreciation for a book on the commute–crying in public on the Metro (ranking way higher above my previous criteria, missing my stop or getting on the wrong train). How to describe this book … well, it’s about a woman whose life ends many times until she can get it right and includes amazing vivid scenes of life from before World War I through the blitz. Read more about the book at Kate Atkinson’s site.

bodiesThe other book, which I’m just a few dozen pages into, is Hilary Mantel’s Bring Up the Bodies, the sequel to Wolf Hall, the center volume of her three-book series about Thomas Cromwell. Thomas Cromwell has been branded a villain in history, the right hand man of Henry VIII who was responsible for the dissolution of the monasteries (or so the simple version goes). He rose from humble beginnings to a position of great power, playing the dangerous game of power with the Tudors. It’s all familiar history that’s been dumbed down, prettified, and made safe by The Tudors and Philippa Gregory’s The Other Boleyn Girl. But this book, these books, are brilliant and complex and chillingly beautiful; written in third person present tense, an interesting choice, and Bring Up the Bodies has one of the best backstories in a sequel that I’ve ever read.

Have you read either of these books or authors? What have you been reading?

Posted in Reading | 4 Replies

bond_beaus
…these are not. This picture is of some of the Prince Regent’s friends, several of whom are dukes and proof that “Duke=Hawt” is an invention of Romancelandia.

I’m thinking about this in the wake of all the good discussions we’ve had related to whether historical romance, especially Regency historical romance, is dead or deserves to be. If you missed any of this conversation, here are the links:

“Sick of the Regency?” by Diane

“One day after all the editors went home, the slush pile and an abandoned marketing research plan partied hard” by Carolyn

“In the Regency but not wholly of the Regency” by Susanna

My question is: do we need more variety in our heroes?

We’ve discussed dukes and their prevalence in the genre before: “Duking it Out” (by me) and more recently, a couple of posts from Carolyn: “The Case Against Dukes” and In Defense of Dukes”.

The hero who’s a wealthy and powerful lord is an immensely popular trope in historical romance, with dukes being the epitome of that trope. A while ago, I even heard of an editor telling an author her hero must be a duke. It makes me think of Georgette Heyer’s Frederica, in which the heroine’s little brother decides it’s OK for her to marry the hero, a marquess, even if he is a “second best nobleman.” Sheesh.

Anyway, at its weakest, this trope is about the fantasy of being cared for and living a life of leisure. But don’t we want heroines who are strong women, useful rather than merely decorative?

One of Carolyn’s posts on dukes provided a good answer:

The hero is powerful in all the things that will offer a heroine safety during a time when women were dependent on men for their safety. He’s Prince Charming and his heroine is going to democratize him (emphasis mine).

The ending in which she can be a partner to him and help him use all that wealth and power wisely makes this trope satisfying, for me at least. Bring on the dukes, just write them well. But I’m very happy when writers tackle stories about different heroes, such as younger sons who have a different set of challenges.

sharpeThen there are heroes not born into the aristocracy. Rare but they exist. I know at least some of us find that type attractive.

I’m especially intrigued by Janet’s recent excerpt and by Susanna’s description of her upcoming release A Dream Defiant. Unless I’ve missed something (admittedly I haven’t read everything out there) writing black heroes is ground-breaking for the genre.

More variety in heroes ought to strengthen the genre. Not that I think anyone should force herself to write something just to be different, just that she shouldn’t feel constrained by the popular tropes if she wants to do something different.

The publishing environment supports greater variety now than ever, although that comes with other issues. The stories you want to read may be out there, but finding them can still be a challenge. Certainly we will talk about some of them here.

What do you think? Are there types of “risky” heroes would you like to see more of?

Elena
www.elenagreene.com
www.facebook.com/ElenaGreene

Posted in Reading, Writing | 5 Replies

I have had such a busy couple of weeks with a family reunion in California and my daughter’s college graduation (Yay!) that release day of A Reputation for Notoriety has sneaked up on me. It is tomorrow!

In honor of release day, I’m giving away one signed copy of A Reputation for Notoriety to one lucky commenter chosen at random.

The back cover blurb of A Reputation for Notoriety

Raising the stakes…

As the unacknowledged son of the lecherous Lord Westleigh, John “Rhys” Rhysdale was forced to earn a crust gambling on the streets. Now he owns the most thrilling new gaming establishment in London.

Witnessing polite society’s debauchery and excess every night, Rhys prefers to live on its fringes, but a mysterious masked lady tempts him into the throng.

Lady Celia Gale, known only as Madame Fortune, matches Rhys card for card and kiss for stolen kiss. But the stakes are raised when Rhys discovers she’s from the very world he despises…

The Masquerade Club.
Identities concealed, desires revealed…

The first review!

4 Stars! “…It’s passionate, intense and seductive. The characters are lively with pulsating sexual tension and there are enough secrets, scandals and complications to make a lady swoon with glee!” — Maria Ferrer, RT BOOKReviews (read the whole review)

I wanted to write a gaming hell story and a story about a bastard son. Thus A Reputation for Notoriety was born. The question for me was what kind of gaming house did I want? I certainly did not want my hero to run a disreputable gaming house and I wanted one that society ladies could attend. The only way I could think of that a lady could attend would be in a mask, but I’d already used that idea in The Wagering Widow. I couldn’t repeat that idea.

Or could I? I decided to use the same gaming house that appeared in The Wagering Widow and to use the hero’s memory of the wagering widow as the idea for his house. I suppose this “proves” that all my Regency people really do live in the same “world.”

I like to think of it that way. I like to think that they all really existed and lived the lives I imagined for them. I like to think that they might pass each other on a Mayfair street or choose the same books from Hachards. While characters in one book are enmeshed in conflict, I like to think that others are living their happily-ever-after.

The latest of my Regency people will begin their story tomorrow. Look for A Reputation for Notoriety on bookstore shelves tomorrow or for sale from online vendors. The ebook version will appear June 1.

Do you like to imagine the people in books are real? What has been keeping you busy these days? Comment for a chance to win a signed copy of A Reputation for Notoriety.

 

Like Carolyn and Diane, I’ve been following with interest the discussion on the state of historical romances in general and Regencies in particular that’s been prominent on the romance blogosphere since Jane at Dear Author’s provocatively titled post, We Should Let the Historical Genre Die.

I’m never sure where I fit in during discussions of the State of the Regency, because I never can decide just how much of a Regency writer I am. Back when the Golden Heart and Ritas had two separate categories for Regencies and other historicals, I used to angst endlessly about where to enter my books. What if I entered them in Regency and got marked down for not having enough ballrooms and dukes? Or what if I entered them in historical, only to have some judge see the “1811” dateline at the top of the first chapter and think, “Hey! This is a Regency. I’m sick of Regencies. If I wanted to judge one, I would’ve signed up for that category.”

In the end, I entered The Sergeant’s Lady as a historical and its prequel, A Marriage of Inconvenience, as a Regency. Why? Well, The Sergeant’s Lady is set almost entirely in Spain during the Peninsular War with, as the title makes clear, a common sergeant as a hero. Despite its 1811-12 setting and British protagonists, it just doesn’t feel Regency. A Marriage of Inconvenience, on the other hand, is a house party story set in Gloucestershire, with a wealthy viscount for a hero and a poor relation cousin of a baronet for a heroine. Regency tropes everywhere you look.

My third book, An Infamous Marriage, is maybe a half-Regency. The hero and heroine are of the gentry rather than the nobility, and though they move in exalted circles in Brussels in the run-up to Waterloo because of the hero’s rank as a major-general, that’s not what their story is about. And my fourth book, A Dream Defiant, despite its 1813 setting is another non-Regency–it takes place in Spain in the aftermath of the Battle of Vittoria, the hero is a black soldier (the son of Virginian slaves who ran away to the British army and freedom during the American Revolution) and the heroine is another soldier’s widow, an ordinary village girl whose ambition in life is to take over her home village’s posting inn and make it famous for serving the best meals on the Great North Road.

I don’t want the Regency to die because I have such an insatiable passion for the opening 15 years or so of the 19th century. I mean, what would I do with all my research books if i couldn’t base my novels upon their contents?

Susanna's Shelf

But when I write my Regencies (or Regencies in year only, as the case may be), I’m trying my best to ground them in a specific place and time–and that’s what I’d like to see more of in the genre as a whole. I know a lot of writers and readers love historicals for the “Once Upon a Time” feeling, and the last thing I want to do is deny anyone the pleasure of the stories they like best. But for myself I don’t want once upon a time. I want 1812 at the Battle of Salamanca, or Seattle in the 1850’s, or Philadelphia in 1776. And I don’t want the only alternatives to Regency to be Victorian, Western, and Medieval. I want Colonial American historicals. I want more stories set on the West Coast, like Bonnie Dee’s lovely Captive Bride. I want a Civil War romance from the Union side. Given the role of women at the time it’d be tricky to pull off, but I’d love to see an ancient Greek romance set sometime around the Greco-Persian wars. And so many more. I want more history–in my Regencies and across the genre.

What about you? What unexplored corners of the Regency world would you like to see more of? And what other periods of history strike your fancy?

Edmund_Blair_Leighton_-_AdieuLast week on my Diane’s Blog, I mentioned the discussion on Dear Author titled  We Should Let The Historical Genre Die.

At the end of the blog Jane says:

I’m not going to launch a historical romance campaign.  I think I’m actively looking for the historical romance genre to die.  For Regency dukes to molder into dust.  For dashing  earls to be crushed.  Only then can the genre reinvent itself.  I don’t want to save the historical romance genre. I want it to die and from the ashes, maybe then, a new and fresh historical voices will arise unconstrained by both reader, editor and agent expectations.

Of the 122 comments, several remarked about being tired of Regency and blaming the “demise” of the Historical Romance on the fact that the vast majority are Regency. One commenter said:

I have tried writing Regency but, as you pointed out, there are no original plots and the readership for this period is so knowledgeable I wouldn’t dare get the slightest flick of a fan out of place!

Edmund_Blair_Leighton_-_CourtshipNo original plots? (and I try so hard….)

Other commenters complained about what we’ve discussed here many times, the “wallpaper” historical, one that puts the characters in costume but has them acting in 21st century ways. Can’t disagree with that personally, although I know some readers prefer this sort of Regency.

The discussion apparently began with a blog on All About Romance, asking Where Have All The Historical Romances Gone? with some of the same points made, especially in the comments.

Evangaline Holland joined the debate in her blog post, The Trouble With Historical Romance. In the comments she remarked that other romance genres ebb and flow with changing tastes and audiences, but she cited this parenthetical example:

(look at how quickly Harlequin’s contemporary romance lines shift and morph based on audience response, whereas Harlequin Historical–once in danger of being axed completely–shifts at a comparatively glacial pace).

I must remark that saying this about Harlequin Historical is a misconception. HH has never given up Westerns, even when other publishers did, and they’ve experimented with lots of different time periods and settings: Jeannie Linn’s Chinese historicals, Ancient Rome, Vikings, Irish Medevials, Amanda’s Elizabethans and more.

Suffice to say that I found all these discussions about historical romance very interesting. The various opinions about Regency Historical Romance was often daunting and discouraging–I also thought they were at least partially true.

380px-Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Weeping_Woman_(F1069)That little anxious mini-me who lives inside my brain was wailing, “What’s the use!” Her chin was on the floor and she was halfway to believing that nobody liked Regencies anymore.

Until my dh and I went to Old Town Coffee Tea & Spice in Alexandria with a friend. We were there a long time, picking out lots of loose tea, so we were getting pretty chummy with the salesclerk, a woman in her 50s, I’d guess.

My dh asked her, “Do you read romance novels?” (I was as surprised as she was at the question. My dh is not usually my publicist!)

She responded, “Yes.” She paused for a few seconds. “But I only read Regencies.”

Next time we go, I’m bringing her a book!

So what do you think?
Do you think the Historical Romance genre should die so it can be resurrected into something better?
Do you think Regency plots are over done? If so, which ones?
Do you think the problem with Historicals is there is not enough diversity of time periods? If so, what time periods and settings would you like to see more of?