Pics, quips, and other delights

Hi, here's Jo. Now it's June, Charlie has his fan ready, waiting for some really warm weather!

Now wasn't that kiddy-pic contest fun? You're all very good at captions! Here's one Charlie likes.

For other caption fun, visit Quips Cards It's a Victoria BC company and some of the cards are hilarious. I see they've animated some of them for the web. So clever! Here's one as a taste.

Off you go. I'll wait a while for you to come back here. *G*

Oh, and why not have a go yourselves, just for fun this time.

Here's a picture. Anyone got a caption?

While I'm on a pictorial theme, how about some English touring? I realized the BBC has panoramas of many places. They have a lot of still pictures, too, but the panoramas are fun. There are, however, a large number of football stadiums!

So let's start with a stroll down Canterbury High Street.  How about lunch at the Weaver?

Canterbury is, of course, one of England's most ancient and important cathedral cities, so check out all these panoramas and have a wander on your own.Canterbury index.

I can never resist a castle, even if it is in ruins.
Pomeroy Castle

Here's one of Sidmouth in Devon. I used it as the base for the coastal town in Skylark (Hate that cover!)

Sidmouth  is a lovely old town which was very popular in the early 19th century because the headlands at either side of the bay created a sheltered winter climate. Many of those houses in the picture date back to then.

And lastly for the panoramas -- A cornfield in Yorkslhire. Yes, that really is corn, ie maize. In England, of course, "corn" means grains like wheat and barley. I had my characters talking about corn fields in some of my early books and got letters correcting me. So now I write around it.

What do you think about that sort of thing? Should authors avoid correct terms for the place and period that might create problems for some readers, or should readers be led into enlightenment, perhaps  even by footnotes? And how much leeway  should we get in the other direction? Can we any language that works for the modern American reader?

When writing about a foreign country, how much should we respect that language and culture? I have to say that as an Englishwoman I get irritated if authors don't seem to have tried at all, but have romped merrily into something rather like the Excalibur Hotel in Las Vegas! I know there's an element of fantasy in romance novels, but to me it's a matter of respect. Perhaps we're allowed to play games with our own culture and history, but not with other people's.What do you think?

How far can the writer setting books in foreign lands alter values to suit their home readership? In response to a very interesting blog by Laura vivanco at the wonderful Teach Me Tonight blog. (That's a link to a number of Laura's blogs. The one I'm referring to is the second "My Route From Here" but the others are great, too.

I wrote a comment. The first part is Laura, then my comment.

Laura: "I would like to do a bit of work on some romances which seemed to have a particularly explicit American flavour (e.g. representing the American dream through the characters and plot, or explicitly describing particular things/places as American)."

Me: "I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, Laura, but I'm aware of two story aspects that strike me as American (possibly also Canadian and other immigrant based countries) that often jar with historical realities of long established cultures such as European ones.

One is the appeal of the self-made man -- using man specifically. It doesn't seem to matter much with the heroines. In fact, an establishment/aristocratic heroine is often paired with the up-by-the-bootstraps hero, and stated or implied is that he is more worthy than all men of her own class or culture.

The other is the pull toward exploration and the new rather than the tending of the value to hand, which often brings restraints of responsibility and honor which are seen as unappealing and even weakening -- ie, the hero's a wimp for accepting the role he's been born to.

I very much enjoy self-made heroes and heroines, but their stories have to make some sense in their time and place. There have been good examples throughout history. However, it jars when the novel assumes that the self-made are inherently more noble or of more value. There are plenty of historical examples of self-made people who were truly awful, driven by ambition, greed and selfishness.

There are also plenty of examples of people born to privilege and power who were truly noble and benevolent, often at great cost to themselves."

So, what do you think about this? If, let's say, the Japanese had a thriving fiction market for books set in America, with American characters, but those characters followed Japanese social patterns and values, would it bother you? (They might, for all I know. I know something of Manga, which is odd in this respect, but not usually set in a semi-realistic foreign country.)

That question is frames for Americans. Please translate to fit your own culture.

Have fun, always!

Jo

Comments

[Laura Vivanco]

Hello Jo. Thanks for mentioning my post. Here's a direct link to your comment over at TMT: http://teachmetonight.blogspot.com/2008/05/my-route-from-here.html#c2703055879931901609

I think it might come in handy as the original post has now moved down the page a little.

Re "Perhaps we're allowed to play games with our own culture and history, but not with other people's.What do you think?"

What's struck me is the extent to which many Americans seem to think of British/Scottish/Irish history/culture as their own, in a way. I don't have a great deal of evidence to offer in support of this but there was a column at AAR a while ago in which the columnist wrote that

"much of American culture and American national memory comes from England. England - its traditions, history, even English food - are part of American history. We speak English. We identify with the English in any story that includes them and a non-English speaking power.

American culture does not descend from modern day England. It descends from an earlier England. England of the 19th century dominated the world, much in the way that America does today. In this way, I believe that Americans not only identify with 19th century English, we understand them better than many of their descendants who live in England today. Those descendants know a lot about their ancestors, but do they know what its like to be the focus of the national foreign policy of virtually every country in the world? Do they know what its like to feel, in some way, responsible for the world’s welfare?"
http://www.likesbooks.com/267.html

I've also read comments by quite a lot of Americans who refer to their Scottish, Irish etc ancestors and point to that as something which makes the culture/history of these places "theirs."

I don't think this is a bad thing, but culture and history aren't embedded in our DNA, so while someone may feel that they have a link to the past/another country via some rather distant ancestors, that's no guarantee that the current inhabitants of that place (or the distant ancestor) would actually find they had shared ideas about the culture/history of that place. And even two inhabitants of the same place, both with ancestors who'd lived in that place, might have very different views of it.

[Maggie Robinson]

Now that I've toured a part of the world, I'm ready to go to work. Thank you, Jo!

I always remind myself I'm reading fiction. Even fiction written contemporaneously with its own time must have taken liberties with social structure and mores. But I tire of the historical romance heroine who has listened to Helen Reddy one too many times to ring true.

As for using words that are unfamiliar, I say go for it. I've got a dictionary, both online and bound which is big enough to break toes when dropped. I once used the word 'frog' in a contest to describe a fastening and the judge put a ? next to it. I used 'Turkey carpet' and ruffled some feathers too. I love coming across stuff I don't know.

Considering the term 'elite' has become a dirty word in this political campaign, I suppose it's no surprise Americans root for the boot-strap boy. But dukes will never die.*g*

[buggalugs]

Hi,
As an Australian, Corn is not wheat; if wheat was described then I’d want it to be wheat!
My uncle grew maize which I always thought of as coarse corn…used as cattle fodder!
I must admit I get annoyed by too many American phrases in an England set-historical,
i.e. ‘in back of the house’ I think a good editor should pick up these sorts of errors!
But then an American would not even think this was an error.
Writers can’t really win can they? Someone will see an error from their own perspective?
I recently read Joanna Bourne’s book The Spymasters Lady , the heroine was French and spoke in a French style (at least I thought so) and the book was very well written! Perhaps a French speaking reader would not think so… (great book BTW)

If a book was really annoying with lots of errors, I think it would be ok for a reader to politely tell a writer about it…
Cheers Carol

[Jo Beverley]

Jo here.
Laura said, "I don't think this is a bad thing, but culture and history aren't embedded in our DNA, so while someone may feel that they have a link to the past/another country via some rather distant ancestors, that's no guarantee that the current inhabitants of that place (or the distant ancestor) would actually find they had shared ideas about the culture/history of that place. And even two inhabitants of the same place, both with ancestors who'd lived in that place, might have very different views of it."

That's a really interesting angle and I'm trying to wrap my mind around it before breakfast. I think it's some sort of quantum physics of time. Where's Stephen Hawking when we need him!

I'll boil it down to, what are the rights and responsibilities of people today toward ancestors and ancestral lands they no longer inhabit?

As I said, I'm genetically Irish, and I'm sure many of my qualities come down in the blood, but I don't feel any rights to that culture and I'm sure if I went to live there it'd take a long time to really fit in.

I feel completely English (despite having lived in Canada for 30 years)so I don't think I'll ever write anything but Englisth protagonist. No, sorry, I did do Irish in Dangerous Joy. Oh, and an Italian woman for A Lady's Secret. I worked hard at that, though, and I'm sure still got many nuances wrong.

That's it, though, isn't it? I count the Normans as English, as they were subsumed by Englishness over time.*G*

Just wandering thoughts early on a Monday morning on an empty stomach.

Interesting, Carol. So in Australia you don't use "corn" to cover wheat etc. As you definitely grew out of a British background, I wonder when that changed. The history of words is so interesting!

I think readers who are dissatisfied should definitely let the people responsible know. Why are we the only customers who aren't supposed to complain?

In addition, if the reader writes to the author about an error, that allows the author to correct her if the reader's wrong.

Like readers who think a Turkey carpet is made of feathers, Maggie. Or "they couldn't have drunk gunpowder tea. It'd kill them."

Jo :)

[Michelle]

I've thought about this since Jo brought this up earlier in the past year or so. I've come to no conclusions - just more thoughts.

1) Is the majority of the historical romance audience American? If so, perhaps that explains why a self-made hero can resonate with a lot of readers.

2) A week or so ago, I read Fareed Zakaria's The Post American World. He mentioned how much the British dominated culturally in the 19th century/early 20th century - so much so that the whole world recognized and understood British stories. (The recent example that came to mind for me was Harry Potter.) Could it be that different cultures felt the need to play with the story types that the whole world recognizes and makes them their own? I've heard that English-set historical romances sell the best worldwide - and I wondered if that was bc of FZ's point that the whole world recognizes and understands these stories.

3) Are you supposed to refer to the corn laws as the wheat and barley laws? Of course, before I get too snooty, I must admit that the first references to "cattle" attached to carriages in regency stories made me think the beau monde were using oxen (a la wagons west), and "beaver hats" brought to mind davey crocket coonskin hats.

[Kalen Hughes]

Those two very American outlooks seem to me to be strongly behind the popularity of spy books, much as they are behind the heir to the dukedom who none-the-less gallantly serves his country as an officer during the war with Napoleon (and is lauded by everyone for doing his duty).

None of this jives with “my” understanding of duty, gallantry, or acceptability AS THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN PERCEIVED BY OUR CHARACTERS. It seems to me that there was a real, solid, vital reason that first sons normally didn’t join the army, but I think the general perception here in modern America is that any man who didn’t serve was a wimp and a shirker (and maybe a coward). *shrug*

I’m not sure how this to best resolve the issue of historical accuracy and reader perception of what is accurate (not to mention modern prejudices for behavior). Sometimes it’s best to skirt around the problematic issue, the way most authors never show the connection that sugar and rum have to slavery during the 18th and early 19th centuries. Unless your protagonist is going to be an abolitionist, is it really worth getting into? And unless those abolitionist tendencies are important to the plot, is it worth making your character an abolitionist? There were lots of abolitionist societies in England, and they promoted abstention from sugar (and all things related to slavery) but does this belong in a romance? It makes an interesting detail to throw in (and I’m toying with having the hero’s mother be a staunch abolitionist in my WIP) but I’m not sure if adding this kind of element ads more than it distracts . . .

[liz montgomery]

I know I'm enjoying a book when I get annoyed about what the characters would or would not do as it applies to their time period and socioeconomic outlooks. It means I've bought in. Otherwise, it's all Regencyland to me, and I let it go.

I'm American and the 'americanizm' of english characters is actually one of my pet reading annoyances - when the colonial character is a breath of fresh air instead of whatever they might actually think of the individual character based on more than their representational nationality for the reader.

Did that even make sense? (I'm still thinking about self identified nationality vs actual nationality vs filter of time vs internal truth of experience. That's a comment that takes time to chew)

But yea, the Japanese thing would bother me - I get bothered by any weird thing like that - a street they couldn't have driven on, a job they couldn't have taken, so a self sacrificing company man for a hero would make me say 'where'd they find that guy??'

Right, but

[Jo Beverley]

Yes, Liz, I have to admit that the American in London/breath of fresh air scenario bothers me. I haven't come across it for a while, though.

I refer it to our own experiences. We mostly have a fairly stable situation in life because most people like that.

We like to live in an area that's congenial to us, to have friends who are more or less like us, to not have things in our faces that seem peculiar or even downright wrong to us.

We welcome new blood and new ideas, but in small amounts and occasionally. We prefer to go elsewhere to experience the really different -- if we want to experience that at all.

Anyone disagree with the above. Go for it!

But given that, someone who comes in raring to overturn everything, show how wrong or inferior everything is and tell us how fabulously perfect things are where they come from....

What's the natural reaction? I'd say it's been so in all times and all places.

Comments?

Jo

[Susan Wilbanks]

I admit to being one of those Americans who's fond of self-made heroes. The thing is, I *know* I'm projecting my own lefty populist values into the past, so when I do it as a writer, I try to be realistic about how the aristocrats among my characters would've viewed intruders into their world.

That said, my current WIP stars one of those highborn men who's truly noble and heroic (though he's a younger son and can therefore be a warrior without sacrificing historical accuracy). To top it off, he's perfectly comfortable with the idea that it's the men like him who were born to rule and tends to look askance at anything with the faintest whiff of populism about it. And, frankly, I wasn't comfortable with it or him at first, because I'm such a "Power to the People" writer at heart. But he insisted the story belonged to him, and he was right, so I'm letting him star. However, since he was so d*mn insistent that he wanted to take over the story, I'm foisting a self-made man on him for a best friend and am considering sticking him with an American wife--but I'm *using* my hero's discomfort with their upstart nature rather than sweeping it under the rug.

(I'm not the only one who argues continually with my own characters, am I?)

[Louis]

I'd want to give him a "facer" and send him on his way.

That would be my reaction.

[liz montgomery]

"But given that, someone who comes in raring to overturn everything, show how wrong or inferior everything is and tell us how fabulously perfect things are where they come from..."

Ah Jo, to the choir you're speaking on that. I'm a native Floridian and we have this thing called a 'season'....

Hm. Now I wonder if working class London in Regencyland felt that way about THEIR 'season'. All the self impressed coming in with their fancy carriages and their attitude that we all ceased to exist while they were gone, held in suspended animation for their return and their lecturing, none of us with a culture of our own worth having....

Certainly I've always accepted that the staff of the large houses was happy to have the family in residence because having the family there might mean improvements, commerce in town, meaning to the workday, and the assurance the place wouldn't be shut down permanently - but maybe not. Generally when the staff is shown as unhappy to see the owners it's due to embezzlement - I can only think of a tiny number of tales where they just liked having the place to themselves, to live as they see fit.

Hm, still a very thought chewy topic today.

[Jo Beverley]

Hey Liz, I grew up in a holiday town with a season. I know just what you mean!

I suppose it wasn't the same, though, because people came for a week or two and they really enjoyed the seaside. It's not like having people move in for months, living there, in a way.

I don't think there was much of that in the London season, however. The prosperous permanent residents had their own world, to an extent. (As illustrated in The Fortune Hunter, in case anyone hasn't picked up their copy of Lovers and Ladies yet. *G*)

The servants and tradespeople were delighted to have the big spenders back.

I think.

Anyone have a different opinion?

Me, too, Louis, except I probably wouldn't be physical about it.

Everyone, do you think a lot of people have trouble seeing things from the other side, especially when the other side is distant in time and place?

Jo

[Laura Vivanco]

"I admit to being one of those Americans who's fond of self-made heroes. The thing is, I *know* I'm projecting my own lefty populist values into the past"

That doesn't seem particularly "lefty" to me. "Self-made" tends to make me think "capitalist." So I think of the difference between the two attitudes as more like the difference between Thatcherite Conservatives and old-fashioned, paternalistic Conservatives. Both are right-wing. I'd think of some of the radicals and Chartists, people like Robert Owen, as being "lefties."

[Sue]

As another transplanted Brit on Canadian soil, I too get peeved at inaccuracies about England. The worst one for me is talking about the Anglican church when it's Church of England or a British accent (there's no such thing!) but mainly it's the lack of appreciation of class distinctions(A hilarious and educational read is Jilly Cooper's book "Class"). People are still judged by class today and moving between class lines is very difficult. That makes a plot with a lower class heroine fitting right in to a ducal household completely unbelievable. If you all remember, Diana Spencer was a "commoner" to the Royal family even though she was the daughter of an Earl! Having said that the Queen's eldest grandson Peter just married a Canadian commoner so 30 years on times are a changing!
Lastly, Jo has just explained a long held mystery of mine: how a heroine could get lost in a corn field. I only ever knew corn fields like the BBC photo; knee high. I always thought she must have been a midget!!!! Canadian and American corn is on steroids by comparison.

[talpianna]

Am I the only one here who has read Jeffery Farnol's THE AMATEUR GENTLEMAN? It canvasses a number of views about what constitutes a "gentleman," from the most crass to the Christian. Great book.

Nobody else seems to be playing the game of captioning that picture, so do I win by default? Here's mine: "Back off, buddy! I only asked if you had any Grey Poupon!"

[liz montgomery]

"Everyone, do you think a lot of people have trouble seeing things from the other side, especially when the other side is distant in time and place?"

Any American who disagrees with that is either lying or hibernates during election cycles.

But taking it more seriously, yea, sure. A common thing in people researching family history is to start exclaiming everyone was 'just like them' as though people (and what motivates them) has magically changed. It's easy to take the realization that people are people a bit too far and start making value judgments based on the benefit of knowledge we have now, or preferences we've assumed. I think it's nigh impossible to fully understand the view of someone so alien - look how difficult it is to understand close family members.

A few days ago a friend was explaining to me she couldn't stand Austen because of the weakness of her female characters - I was like, weak? But if you look at... and it wasn't any use - even though the books were contemporary to the times for her reading purposes Austen's heroines should have the benefit of our outlooks.

[Jo Beverley]

Tal, I like your caption! Come on. There's still time to put in an offering and the best will be worth a round of applause,

Jo :)

[talpianna]

To coin a phrase--don't applaud; send money!

[Patricia Rice]

This is would make an excellent all-night discussion since at the base, we're talking about class and national prejudices, always a favorite topic of mine. But trying to sum up all my feelings in a comment ain't happening. Like Susan, I have strong leftist tendencies. While I know the wealthy do good things (and I don't care if they're aristocratic, industrialist, or Martian), I've seen them totally ignore the real world, so I have a certain innate resentment that does boil out occasionally.

But I'm also completely happy reading a Japanese version of America as long as the characters are interesting. And given my tendency to move every three years, I don't share a strong sense of place and have no problem with change. I doubt that I represent the mass market though, so your point may be well taken in some aspects. But my characters will often reflect some part of me, and are quite likely to WANT change--or at least one of them will. "G" It's hard to drum up conflict with satisfied characters.

[Janae]

I've been reading for awhile now, but never felt the need to post until now.

When I read a book set in a particular place and time, I want the language and class situation to reflect that. I want it to be historically accurate. I don't read American historical fiction because I haven't found an author who can do that. Too frequently, their history is poor (I know because I have a degree in American history.), and their characters are too modern, especially when they are colonial Americans (my particular area of study).

I read fiction that takes place in the British Isles because I don't know the history as well, even though, I took a few European history classes in college. A book isn't going to be ruined for me if there are some historical accuracies. I rarely read beyond 1840 because the Victorian era is depressing. The Georgian and Regency eras draw me because change is in the air. It's fertile ground because so much is happening in the world at that time, particularly in Western Europe.

I don't understand why people who do their genealogy and adopt "their" coat of arms. It's obviously not theirs since they aren't the oldest son. I must admit that I do get a bit giggly when I see coat of arms that Americans have created for themselves. They love to use bar sinister (top right to bottom left). They have no clue that they are declaring themselves to be illegitimate.:)

[Jo Beverley]

Hi Janae, welcome to commenting on the Wenches!

LOL, on the bar sinister.

It is strange, really, that a nation that prides itself on its republican roots can be so into titles and coats of arms.

I think I'm the reverse of you, because I've enjoyed many an American historical, knowing I know less about the time and place. Half my degree is in American Studies, however, which included history, so there's so awareness.

"The Georgian and Regency eras draw me because change is in the air. It's fertile ground because so much is happening in the world at that time, particularly in Western Europe."

Yes, indeed. The Georgian in particular is very vibrant -- even among the aristocracy. *G*

I love the characters who were wild and wastrel and brilliant and farsighted.

These days so many people think conventional morals go along with achieving something in life and it ain't necessarily so. It may actually be a conflict.

Anyone want to tackle that one?

Jo :)

[Linda Banche]

I admit I like self-made heroes, too. But in Regencies, which I adore, I want both hero and heroine to be English. Regencies are by definition (to me) English stories. And they should be true to the era, in most cases.

I started reading Regencies before I even knew what they were. I did know that something in these stories resonated with me. Looking back, I think part of the attraction was that these authors had the period nailed so well it was unobtrusive. The characters fit in this time. And as I remember, most of the heroes were not self-made men. But I loved them anyway.

[Louis]

Tal...

Jeffery Farnol was one of my favorite writers as a teenager...have a half dozen or so of his books. The Loring Mystery is a favorite.

As for captions...

Your place or mine?

[Louis]

Tal...

Jeffery Farnol was one of my favorite writers as a teenager...have a half dozen or so of his books. The Loring Mystery is a favorite.

As for captions...

Your place or mine?

[Jo Beverley]

This is for those of you getting comment feed. The caption results are up, and there's a bonus pic of me as well,

Jo :)