Back to Top

Category: Regency

December 16th has more than one birthday of interest to us Regency-ers. Along with Austen, it’s also the birthday of Beethoven, born in 1770. Five years before Jane. (It’s also the birthday of my mother, but that’s probably only of interest to me, who still has to find her a present. Jane and Ludwig aren’t quite as picky).

I had hoped to make this post about Jane’s own interest in the music of Beethoven. After all, we know she enjoyed music, and that he was one of the leading composers of the era. Alas, according to the Jane Austen Memorial Trust, which has cataloged over 300 pieces of music-related material belonging to Jane, she owned very little by Beethoven (or Mozart, or Handel, or any of the other composers we listen to most today). She owned a lot of pieces by such non-household names as Pleyel, Dibdin, Sterkel, and Kotzwara. So there goes my theme. But here are a few other little factoids I found on my search!

In 1811, Jane Austen published “Sense and Sensibility”; Beethoven first performs his Piano Trio in B-flat
In 1813, “Pride and Prejudice”; Wellington’s Victory
1818, Mary Shelley publishes “Frankenstein”; Beethoven the Piano Sonata #29 (Hammerklavier) (not Austen, I know, but interesting!)

The 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice featured some Beethoven. At the Phillips’ party, Mary plays “Nel cuor non mi santo”. At Pemberley, Georgiana plays “Andante Favore.” And according to the 2005 Pride and Prejudice website, the score was inspired in great part by Beethoven’s piano sonatas, and performed by pianist Jean-Yves Thibaudet with the English Chamber Orchestra in that sort of style. I couldn’t find any info on “real” Ludwigian pieces they might have used, but they did use Purcell at the Netherfield ball.

I also saw that at the Jane Austen Evening our own Cara will be attending in January, there is a visit from “Herr Beethoven” scheduled as well.

Happy birthday, Jane and Ludwig! Hopefully some of you will have other nuggets of factoids to share.

Balloonists Close Up

Since I had a long break from writing due to the combination of holidays and the flu, I’ve gone back to line edit the completed parts of my balloonist story. Editing helps me to get back into the flow of the story; I’m looking forward to getting to new material next week.

Around the same time Megan posted Anachronism vs Anomaly, I was editing a section of the story with a lot of sex scenes. I mean lots. It took until almost the middle of the book for my characters’ attraction to overcome all the reasons they shouldn’t be together. But once they got going, I’m not sure I could have stopped them, even if I wanted to.

The discussion in Megan’s post was about all the activities right up to the actual deed, but it brought up a more general issue of what is believable in Regency-set romance. I’ve had these discussions before with other authors and with thoughtful readers. We’ve talked about what we know based on our research (but people didn’t generally write about sex) and what might have been (we’re writing fiction, after all). We’ve talked about keeping the awareness of the social consequences given the time period.

I have to say a lot of input I’ve specifically gotten from readers is more about their personal preferences. Some have complained about too much sex in my traditional Regencies. Although they complained about accuracy, I’m not sure that was really the issue, since most of the sex scenes were in the context of marriage. I think it was more a matter of comfort level. I’ve also had readers advise me to “sex it up” some more.

The problem is that once I’ve started a story, how soon, how often, how far the sex will go is driven by my characters, their experiences, and the story setup. A widow who thinks she’s infertile will act differently than an inexperienced heroine hoping to make a respectable marriage. The only way to really sex it up or down would be to write a new story.

I know some readers prefer to connect the dots between a fade out and smiles over breakfast the next morning. But I personally feel that it’s more powerful to show the sex as long as the scene is also revealing things about the characters and their relationship.

So I’m just forging on with the story, trying not to worry 1) that there’s not enough, 2) that there’s too much, 3) that it happens too late in the story, 4) that there’s too much in this one part, 5) that there’s not enough in the rest. (As you see I haven’t thought about it much.) I’m just hoping some readers will “get” my characters and enjoy the ride.

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

Posted in Regency, Writing | Tagged | 6 Replies

It’s tough to follow on after the heart-wrenching demise of Frisky the Goldfish (and now his successor, gone to both a watery and icy grave). So I thought I’d write today about servants, who I find far more fascinating than the folks upstairs in the drawing room in the labor-intensive regency household. Of course the best thing about servants, for a writer, is that they knew the household secrets and family dynamics better than anyone. I find it interesting, though, that so many regency-era writers get them all wrong, relying on vague ideas of what servants are like (and copying others’ mistakes).

For instance, a female servant would never answer the front door, unless the household was quite poor and she was theonly servant. Neither would she wear a black dress and white cap–that was a uniform that came in much later in the century. Footmen, dressed in livery, were the servants in an aristocrat household who dealed with visitors and guests–status symbols for the family, since there was a tax on male servants. It was the fashion to hire men who were similar in appearance and height, rather like a team of horses (leading to some very interesting possibilities if you have a mind like mine). Female servants hauled coals, emptied chamberpots, and did other dirty work, while their male (and better paid) colleagues minced around in daft uniforms and wigs opening doors and presenting billets-doux on salvers.

For an interesting breakdown on servants and their duties, visit this page (and if you poke around on the site you can also find out how to become a gentleman’s gentleman), http://www.butlerschool.com/interesting_facts.htm.

For a feel of servants’ living and working quarters, take a virtual tour of the “downstairs” at The Regency Town House–it’s described as a time capsule, as it’s the basement of a house in Hove (near Brighton) that has been virtually untouched for almost two centuries. Restoration of the main house, at 13 Brunswick Square is also underway and the servants’ quarters are a couple of doors down at number 10.

Another interesting servant-oriented stop on your next visit to England is Erddig, an historic house in North Wales, where the former owners (before it was taken over by the National Trust), bless them, didn’t throw away a thing for three centuries, including correspondence with their servants when the masters were away. This unusual family also had portraits painted of their servants and wrote poems in appreciation of them.

A book written for the National Trust about Erddig by Merlin Waterson, The Servants’ Hall, is out of print but you can find secondhand copies online. The Erddig family tradition of staff portraits continued well into the 20th century; in this 1912 photo, each staff member whimsically holdsa tool of their trade (the cook, front row left, is holding a dead pigeon. No wonder they look embarrassed).

The artist William Hogarth painted his servants’ portraits, too. Notice the age range, from a young boy to a middle aged man.

So what was it really like, to be in service? The servants themselves existed in a social heirarchy at least as complicated as that of the people Upstairs.You worked very long, hard hours for not much money, but it was a way, if you scrimped and saved, to make the upward trek into the middle-class. You might end up running an inn or a shop with your sweetheart of many years, if you’d saved up most of your wages and tips (a valuable addition to the low wages most servants earned). A manservant in the 1820s eloquently described his life: The life of a gentleman’s servant is something that of a bird shut up in a cage. The bird is well housed and well fed but is deprived of liberty, and liberty is the dearest and sweetest object of all Englishmen. Therefore I would rather be like a sparrow or a lark, have less housing and feeding and rather more liberty. A servant is shut up like a bird in a cage, deprived of the benefit of the air to the very great injury of the constitution.

Any good servant scenes in anything you’ve read recently? Have you ever wanted to write about servants?

Janet


Apologies in advance for the extremely maudlin and sentimental start of this post! Those who wish to skip the gushy part can just go on to the heading BACK ON TOPIC.

Last week, we lost the redcap that my youngest daughter has had for about half of her life. As it wasn’t convenient to hold a proper service at the time, Frisky spent several days in a plastic bag in our freezer, but this weekend we held the burial. Yes, I know the traditional funeral for fish is through the porcelain gates, but my children think that’s “yucky”. So our tradition is to do a backyard service, with everyone saying a few words in memory of the departed pet and setting a seashell or pretty stone on the gravesite.

This is the second time we’ve done this, and just like last time, I cried almost as much as the kids. I never used to be this sentimental—not to say mawkish! But I can’t help relating to my children’s feelings—these pet burials have been their introduction to the whole idea of death and grieving, and I do want my children know that it’s OK to grieve. Maybe dealing with a pet’s death will in a small way prepare them for bigger losses. Yeah, maybe that’s why I cry—to set a good example.

Or maybe there are permanent hormonal changes when one becomes a mother that make tears come so much more easily than they ever did. Shall I blame it on the hormones? No, overall I’d rather tell myself I’m doing it to set a good example.

(getting tissue, blowing nose…)

BACK ON TOPIC

Of course, it makes me wonder if Regency folk had funerals for their pets. I did a little googling on the subject and found little about “our” period, but some other interesting tidbits:

  • In 2004, the “carefully interred remains of a human and a cat were found buried with seashells, polished stones, and other decorative artifacts in a 9,500-year-old grave site on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus.” Complete article at the National Geographic website.
  • The ancient Egyptians mummified dogs, cats, monkeys and birds.
  • During the Medieval period, people who were too obviously friendly with their pets might have been suspected of witchcraft, so the idea of pet burial was frowned upon. People still did it, or tried to. “As one French cleric arranged a formal Christian funeral for his little dog, news of the plan leaked to his supervising bishop, who demanded he appear before a tribunal to answer charges of heresy.” More at http://www.petcem.com/pet_burial_history.htm.
  • Queen Victoria grieved for the loss of her first dog, a spaniel named Dash, leading the way for Victorians to conduct elaborate pet funerals. But then, Victorians never seemed inclined to keep anything simple.

I didn’t find anything in “our” period, but I haven’t had time to search for long. My guess is people who were really into animals, like Frederica, Duchess of York, who kept a veritable zoo at the Oatlands estate, must have done something for the dearly deceased.
Does anyone know?

Anyway, is it ridiculously sentimental to commemorate a pet’s death? At what point does it get too OTT (Over the Top)?

Elena, off for some more Kleenex…
LADY DEARING’S MASQUERADE, a Romantic Times Top Pick!
www.elenagreene.com

Posted in Regency, Research | Tagged , | 6 Replies


There are far too many people in this world who’ve never read a “traditional Regency.” (Ooh, hate the name. Do you think it’s the name? I think it might be. “Traditional” — who wants to read a “traditional” anything?)

Actually, once upon a time our genre was just called “Regency” — and that’s the name it had for decades. But then the historicals came along, and eventually the Regency historicals were part of it….and one day some readers of Regency historicals (were they mischievous? ignorant? or possibly the forefront of an alien invasion?) started calling the books they read “Regencies” — and ever since, we’ve been stuck with the awkward designation of “traditional Regency.” Not a great name for a genre.

So I’m just going to call them “Regencies,” because that’s the better name, the name they went by for decades, the name that doesn’t scream “old-fashioned” without meaning to.

As I was saying…far too few people read Regencies anymore. In fact, some of the Risky Regency authors themselves, from what I can tell, rarely read Regencies! Now that’s just sad. Really sad. Little-kid-whose-ice-cream-dropped-on-the-ground sad.

So I challenge you: read a Regency! In fact, read more than one. Go read five highly-recommended Regencies, and see if you don’t fall in love with the genre! Oh, Regency historicals are all very well, but they can’t do everything. They can’t be everything. (When’s the last time a Regency historical washed your car for you??? Huh???)

Who will take the challenge? Is there anyone brave enough? Tough enough? After all, I’m asking you to read five Regencies. Wow. That’s a lot of books. And who likes books? Oh, you do? Great! Then take the challenge! Read five highly-recommended Regencies, and see if you aren’t won over to be a dedicated Regency reader! When you’re done, come back here, and tell us if you liked them, and why! (And yes, I’m extending this challenge both to readers of this blog, and to the authors on it too! You know who you are…)


So, what makes a Regency highly recommended, you ask??? Good question. Winning the Rita counts. (If people want, I could post a list of all the Regency Rita winners.) Having friends tell you “you have to read this book!” counts. And I also have a list here of books that I heartily recommend. (There are of course far far more great Regencies, including many books by my fellow bloggers….) I went mostly with older books, now out of print (but available in any good used book store), some of which are recognized classics of the genre, and some of which are hidden gems…in chronological order.

Clare Darcy: LADY PAMELA (1975)
Joan Smith: ESCAPADE (1977)
Joan Smith: IMPRUDENT LADY (1978)
Joan Smith: TALK OF THE TOWN (1979)
Joan Smith: SWEET AND TWENTY (1979)
Patricia Veryan: NANETTE (1981)
Joan Smith: PERDITA (1981)
Kasey Michaels: THE RAMBUNCTIOUS LADY ROYSTON (1982)
Patricia Veryan: MARRIED PAST REDEMPTION (1983)
Sheila Simonson: LADY ELIZABETH’S COMET (1985)
Kasey Michaels: THE PLAYFUL LADY PENELOPE (1988)
Carla Kelly: MRS MCVINNIE’S LONDON SEASON (1990)
Barbara Metzger: AN EARLY ENGAGEMENT (1990)
Carla Kelly: LIBBY’S LONDON MERCHANT (1991)
Barbara Metzger: MINOR INDISCRETIONS (1991)
Alicia Rasley: POETIC JUSTICE (1994)
Karen Harbaugh: THE VAMPIRE VISCOUNT (1995)
Gail Eastwood: THE LADY FROM SPAIN (1997)
Nonnie St. George: THE IDEAL BRIDE (2003)

And if any of you are enthusiastic Regency readers, please comment here and suggest your own recommended reads!!!

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

Posted in Reading, Regency | Tagged | 19 Replies