Back to Top

Category: Reading

Posts in which we talk about reading habits and preferences

Family Ties

Updated on by

Thanksgiving weekend is the time to spend with family, to relish the shared moments and history of your lives, while celebrating the future.

Sure, if you have a normal family. Me, not so much.

Most of us join the Dysfunctional Family Circus, a time where most everyone is tense and Things Get Said and Things Don’t Get Said.

Family issues led me to thinking about the current popularity of connected Regency books, usually through siblings. Mary Balogh wrote about six siblings in her Slightly series, and she did a fantastic job of delineating the differences between all six. Julia Quinn‘s Bridgerton series focuses on eight siblings, all of whom eventually find their HEA. Eloisa James has just released the second book in her Four Sisters series, and in her first book of the series, she did a remarkable job of distinguishing the sisters from each other.

And, of course, for every sibling series I cite, there are zillions more residing in books out there–readers like to read connected books, and making the connection through siblings make a shared history possible, and limit the essential backstory so the author can concentrate on the romance at hand.

I have to admit, even though I love reading these connected series, I just can’t wrap my head around the fact that every single sibling is happy in love. Think about your own family; is everyone blissful in their relationship? If you say yes, you are an unusual person (and I envy you!). When I think about the connected series in toto, I have to say the idea of that many pleased siblings makes me faintly nauseated.

And yes, I am an only child. Why do you ask?

The connected series I tend to believe more are those where the bonds are of friendship, not blood. Friends have to stretch and grow in their relationships, and their respective dynamics can make for fascinating reading.
Mary Jo Putney‘s Fallen Angels, Lynn Kerstan‘s Black Phoenix Brotherhood, and Jo Beverley‘s Company of Rogues are good examples.

So what do you think about connected series? Do you like it when siblings find love, each in their own books? Or, like me, do you try to ignore the other books as you’re reading the one, keeping a Kantian a priori attitude about your book of choice?

Megan

Posted in Reading, Writing | Tagged , , | 5 Replies

A Rose By Any Other Name…

Updated on by

My personal book purchases are almost always based on author. Either I buy books by favorite authors, books by intriguing people I’ve met at conferences or by authors recommended by writer friends. So titles and covers don’t play into my purchases much, but I do have some preferences and pet peeves about titles.

One thing that bugs me (and don’t get me wrong, I’ve enjoyed many books with these titles) is the mass repetition of titles in the romance genre. Just a half-hearted search has turned up loads of books with variants of “ideal/perfect” and “bride/wife”:

  • THE IDEAL BRIDE (a fun romp of a trad Regency by Nonnie St. George and a historical by Stephanie Laurens)
  • A/THE PERFECT BRIDE (Samantha James, Jo Ann Ferguson, Sheila Walsh, Eileen Putnam, Jasmine Cresswell)
  • AN IDEAL WIFE (Betty Neels, Mary Balogh)
  • THE PERFECT WIFE (Lynsay Sands, Shari McDonald, Jane Goodger, Victoria Alexander, Mary Burton)

These titles are just so unmemorable (not that the stories are, necessarily). But maybe there’s just something so intriguing about this combination of concepts that keeps these books flying off the shelves. Ditto with all the Regencies with titles including “London Season”. Still, I worry that sameness of titles connotes sameness of stories. I’d rather see more attempts at original titles (while fully recognizing that the authors might not have had a choice in the matter).

Another pet peeve is titles that are misleading. The worst offender I can think of is a book titled CAPTAIN CUPID CALLS THE SHOTS, by Elisabeth Fairchild. Between the cute title and the rather insipid cover, no one could guess that the story involves a hero with post-war traumatic stress!

I rather like Jean Ross Ewing/Julia Ross’s titles, though I find them amusing in a way. THE SEDUCTION, THE WICKED LOVER, NIGHT OF SIN, GAMES OF PLEASURE are titillating titles with their hint of the forbidden, though the stories are more psychological than the titles might imply and the innate message (as in all good sensual romances) is the healing and cleansing power of loving sex. And the covers are so elegant and luscious!

OK, now to titles I’ve loved. Some of Mary Jo Putney’s: THE RAKE AND THE REFORMER, THE ROGUE AND THE RUNAWAY. They just evoke conflict and adventure and have a nice rhythm. “R” is a sexy letter, too, though maybe as a Risky Regency, I’m a sucker for that particular alliteration. 🙂

Loretta Chase’s Regencies had some memorable titles. VISCOUNT VAGABOND and THE DEVIL’S DELILAH. More alliteration (!) but these are also fun, as are her stories. I also like MISS WONDERFUL and MR. IMPOSSIBLE.

I’ve been fairly lucky myself in having some say in my titles. How about the rest of you Riskies? Have you had to give up a favorite title, or fight to keep it?

As readers, what sort of titles turn you off, or compel you to buy the book?

Elena
LADY DEARING’S MASQUERADE, a Romantic Times Top Pick!
http://www.elenagreene.com/

Posted in Reading, Regency, Writing | Tagged , | 10 Replies

How much does accuracy matter?

Updated on by

How much does historical accuracy matter to you?

I ranted a bit on the subject yesterday…but now I’m calmer, and I’d like to know what everyone else thinks.


At the Austen movie exhibition at the Museum of Costume in Bath, they argued about the EMMA costume shown here, “Gwyneth Paltrow’s green and white dress, with its large, chocolate bow on the bodice, has none of the subtlety of the fabrics that other designers have used… In a way, the pattern looks more like a textile design from the 1970’s… This is just what Hollywood requires: simple dresses, simple messages.” So: does this dress bother you? Is it too anachronistic, or do you like the way it captures Emma’s “princess” role in her community? How accurate do you think fabric and cut need to be? Is having an accurate outline enough?


Or how about hair, and bonnets? Does it bother you that Emma goes outside throughout the movie with the hairstyle shown above, and no hat or bonnet? Or how about Keira Knightley’s Elizabeth Bennet, who skips a bonnet, and also has her hair down? Is that too ahistorical for you?


How about Greer Garson, in the 1940 PRIDE AND PREJUDICE movie? It is commonly said that in this film, they gave the men Regency styles, and the women the styles of a decade or two later….but doesn’t this dress also look very 20th century? Does it bother you that the women aren’t wearing dresses that are remotely Regency? And does Garson’s non-period hair bother you?



Here we have two shots of Embeth Davidtz playing Mary Crawford in the recent movie of MANSFIELD PARK. This, in my opinion, is the most anachronistic dress of all, but it does convey Mary Crawford’s slinkiness, and sophistication. Does this dress drive you bats? (I wish I could also find a photo of Miss Bingley’s sleeveless dress — I don’t believe one exists on the internet! But here’s her other dress, which is less wrong, but still odd.)


How about accuracy in books? When Heyer talks about the Little Season during the Regency, though it didn’t yet exist, does that annoy you? When another author’s hero runs away at eighteen and purchases a commission in the navy, do you shout at the book? When Sir William is also Sir Barton, and Lord Brighton is also Lord George, do you throw the book against the wall? Or are all of these annoyances minor to you (if indeed you notice them at all)?

What kind of inaccuracies bother you most? Easily checked facts, such as title, distances between towns, how fast a carriage could go? Or the mindset of the times? Or the rules of society?

Please share!

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

Posted in Reading, Regency, Writing | Tagged , , | 13 Replies

What is it about military men?

Updated on by


The hero in MY LADY GAMESTER was a cavalry officer before he became an earl. Military heroes are quite common in Regencies, aren’t they? And I love to read about them.

So — what is the appeal of the military man in historical romances?

Is it the physical courage?

Is it the gorgeous uniform? Is it the honor, the selfless dedication that such service implies?

Jane Austen had military men in her novels too, of course — she particularly liked the navy, as she had two naval brothers. In her novels, PERSUASION’s Captain Wentworth is a naval officer…as is the heroine’s brother in MANSFIELD PARK.

In PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, Wickham is in the Militia, seducing the hearts of women everywhere with his red coat. In SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, Colonel Brandon is a retired army officer.

And of course, there are the 20th century military novels set during the Napoleonic era — Bernard Cornwell’s SHARPE series, C.S. Forester’s HORATIO HORNBLOWER series, and Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey/Maturin novels (such as MASTER AND COMMANDER.)


Do you like military heroes? If you like to read them, what’s the attraction? If you like to write them, what are the advantages to a scarlet coat? Which are your favorite romances featuring military or ex-military heroes? On the other hand, do you think these heroes are overdone, and approaching cliche?

All opinions welcome!

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

Posted in Reading, Regency, Writing | Tagged , | 9 Replies

Undercover agents

Updated on by

No, not THAT kind of undercover! 🙂 I’m talking about the well-known Regency spy plot. One might even call it a Regency sub-genre, it’s become so popular.

One of my favorite books when I was a teenager (and one I still love) is THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL. It was so exciting, so suspenseful, and I love the whole “dashing espionage genius disguised as a moron” set-up (I also really like this about the Peter Wimsey stories). I even enjoyed the various movie versions. So, I often enjoy a good romance featuring spies and intrigue. Though I often wondered–where do all these duke/spies possibly find time to do all that? Running estates, going to balls/Whites/Almack’s, spying for England, AND romancing the heroine. This led me to a great book, SECRET SERVICE: BRITISH AGENTS IN FRANCE, 1792-1815. I wanted to discover more of the “true story” of Regency espionage, and this is a fabulous source.

A few spy romances I’ve enjoyed:
Elizabeth Boyle’s BRAZEN ANGEL
Loretta Chase’s SANDALWOOD PRINCESS
Mary Jo Putney’s THUNDER AND ROSES and PETALS IN THE STORM
Amanda Quick’s AFFAIR
Gaelen Foley’s LORD OF FIRE
Adele Ashworth’s WINTER GARDEN (a terrific heroine spy in this one!)

I know there are many others, but these were just the ones I remember at the moment. 🙂 What are some of YOUR favorite spy stories? What do you like/dislike about them? And have you ever written an undercover character of your own? (I’ve never written a spy hero, but I did have a heroine who was a spy. But she was Spanish. Does that count?)

Posted in Reading, Regency | Tagged , | 7 Replies