Word Wenches

A Rare Day

Today is a rare day.
A "Brigadoon" day.

The twenty-ninth of February appears every four years, and then disappears into the mists until another four years pass. It is also called a Leap Year, because --- hmm. Got me.
Still, people born on this day are younger than people born the year before.

It is also Sadie Hawkins Day, the great cartoonist Al Capp's invention. Women are supposed to be able to propose to men on this one rare day. But the actual event is a race held on Sadie Hawkin's Day in Dogpatch (and on some college campuses) in which the males get a head start. The females race after them and any man they catch must marry them. The concept was eagerly accepted when it was invented, because it was funny, and the first female empowerment holiday - even though Sadie's looks leave much to be desired. Actually, that was the point. They weren't desired.
From the vantage point of time, Sadie Hawkins Day seems kind of anti-feminist.
Is it? What do you hink?

You'd think, if they had to stick an extra day in somewhere, they'd put it on the end of June or October: beautiful months we could use more of.
But February? Here in the East, it's cold and snow/rainy and gray.
I think we should slice the whole thing up and tack the bits onto brighter, happier months.
But who am I?
A Historical romance writer.
And what has this to do with Romance? Nothing, I hope. Women should be able to take the initiative in deciding who they choose to marry more then only once every quartet of years. And they shouldn't have to look like sexy paper dolls or use nets and traps to catch those husbands.

As you can see, I'm not a great fan of Februay 29th.
But it was a great day for me this year!
I had a deadline I kept missing due to the most aggravating clutch of mishaps ever to come in a row. Everything from toilets rebelling, exploding sewer lines, hideous flu and the consequences, family nonsenses, and, etc., etc., etc.

... And then, would you believe it? I got the proofs for HIS DARK AND DANGEROUS WAYS, my book coming out from AVON in June. I had to put down the manuscript I was working on and correct the proofs before I could meet my deadline.

Then, done with that, I was printing up the finally finished MS for this long delayed book - and my ink cartridge ran dry, sending me out ranging through the wilderness to find another.

But I had an extra day to finish and send it in.
I done it. And it will get there in the nick of time, on deadline! (Barring blizzards, natural disasters, and a general strike by UPS workers, of course.)
Because of Leap Year.

Hoorah for the twenty-ninth of February!

Now, the other question for you, dear readers -

Since it's a day out of time and joint - just think.
If you had a whole extra day - a day off the record - a day that didn't count - a day just for yourself, what would you do with it?

Do tell. I'd love to know.

The Lady Macbeth Interview: Part Two

An interview with Susan Fraser King by Susan/Miranda

Welcome back for Part Two of our interview with Wench Susan Fraser King, celebrating the publication of her new historical novel, Lady Macbeth: A Novel.  Today Susan chats with the other Susan (fellow-Wench Susan/Miranda) about several topics that not only relate to her extraordinary book, but that are also near and dear to WordWenches readers--including the story behind the beautiful cover, and Gerard Butler. Read on, read on...and please be sure to leave a comment. Susan will send a signed ARC of Lady Macbeth to a reader chosen from those who post (here or in Part One of the interview)!

SHS: Lady Macbeth is written in first person, yet you vary the tenses. Can you tell us why you chose to do that?

SFK: I wrote the prologue and a couple of ending chapters in first person/present tense, and the rest of the book in first person/past tense. The first person/present tense worked well to frame her story in the present moment, when we see Gruadh, not yet old, looking back on her life from a pivotal moment of decision. The story swings back around to present time toward the end, when she must resolve her dilemma. I loved playing with the tenses, and actually had more of that in the manuscript….but my editor figured Less Is More.

And after writing several third-person/two viewpoint novels, I felt real freedom with the first person voice. It came easily, and parts of the book wrote very quickly because of it. Once I got inside the character's head, she did the talking, and all I had to do was type. Well, sort of. Luckily she had a lot to say about her time and her life. 

SHS:  Lady Macbeth has a beautiful dust jacket.  Since we’re always fascinated by cover art here at the Wenches, could you tell us a bit about the art on your cover, and how it was chosen?

SFK: Cover art, fun question! Gorgeous art covers are a staple of the bigger historicals, but there aren’t any conventionally beautiful portraits of 11th century women to choose from. The publisher thought early medieval art (such as The Bayeux Tapestry, which is more or less current to the novel) seemed too academic, including a rare image of an 11th c. queen, Queen Emma of England: an ink drawing for her encomium (praise book). I love it, with its Byzantine linear style and generic elements typical in 11th c. art; but has that academic feel. It also has a touch of medieval goofiness, an innocence of imagery prevalent in medieval art, but authentic 11th c. art was a no-go for the cover.

I yearned for a pre-Raphaelite cover, and bombarded my editor with images, but the publisher and art dept. wanted a different look. The first pass was a white silhouette of a raven on a branch against a dark background. Real different; that lasted about a week, since it evoked Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth, not mine. The next cover, a castle with a hawk in flight, is on the ARCs. Later the art dept. removed the hawk, saturated the colors, enlarged and clarified the whole image.

The final cover is beautiful, I think, and evokes the book’s atmosphere, though there are no stone castles in the story. The castle is Eilean Donan, which is probably THE most photographed castle in Scotland. I’ve taken many photos of it myself from that same angle (standing in the car park, with the gift shop off to the right!). Familiarity aside, I think it works very well for this book, and the golden sky looks great. The overall presentation is lovely, with Celtic design touches and quality details. (Has anyone seen the extra detail under the jacket??)

SHS: The role of Lady Macbeth in Shakespeare’s play has been a favorite of many great actresses ever since it was written.  If you were casting Gruadh, what actress would you choose to play her?  Any ideas of who’d make a good Macbeth?

SFK: This story would be such a cool movie…as long as I’m daydreaming, I can think of several choices in Hollywood, but many of them are *cough* a bit too old for the roles. The obvious choices for Lady Gruadh might be Keira Knightley or Scarlett Johanssen, since Rue is a very young woman for much of the book. Though I’d love to see Sophia Myles (who played Isolde in Tristan and Isolde – just redo that movie into Lady Macbeth, and I’d be happy!), or even Michelle Williams, who has strength and grace (come to think of it, Heath Ledger, gone far too soon, would have been a great young Macbeth). My yummiest picks for Macbeth would be Jude Law, Russell Crowe, or Gerard Butler—I think they’re all suited for him. Daniel Day-Lewis would be a great Thorfin the Raven-Feeder (Macbeth's cousin and Lady Macbeth's foe)!

So my picks would be Sophia Myles and Gerard Butler, I think. I’d love to know what you all think -- which actors would fit Macbeth and Lady Gruadh?

SHS: Do you see any sequels to Lady Macbeth, following other characters from the book?  What’s next for Susan Fraser King?

SFK: I’m working on a novel about the queen who followed Lady Macbeth on the throne of Scotland—Queen Margaret of Scotland, the Saxon-Hungarian princess who married Malcolm Canmore, had eight children with him (six of them kings and queens), and was later declared a saint. Historians often regard her as one of the most fascinating and influential medieval queens—she almost singlehandedly brought Celtic Scotland into the medieval era—and in many ways she is the opposite of Lady Macbeth, who was essentially the last Celtic queen Scotland ever had. While Margaret was pious, she was not always saintly, and she had a lot of fire and individuality. And—unlike Gruoch’s single Latin document—we know tons about Margaret, thanks to her biographer, her personal priest Turgot (who himself was captured and tortured by Normans before escaping north to join her). He idolized Margaret, but he dished the dirt on her, too (she stole gold from Malcolm’s treasury and dressed as a guy to sneak into church, among other adventures).

And it will be a sequel, in a way, since I get to bring Lady Macbeth back in this book. Historically it’s unknown when she died; by the dates, she could have been around during Malcolm and Margaret’s reign. At the end of her novel, Gruadh has not entirely resolved her dilemma (as I said to my editor, “Years later, she’s probably still pissed at Malcolm,” to which she replied, “Woh yeah!”). Gruadh’s goal will be to find some closure, as we say in our century—or maybe a spot of revenge, with Queen/Saint Margaret standing in her way. Watch for the book! 

Thank you, Susan.  And please let me add that I've already had the great pleasure of reading Lady Macbeth, and I recommend it highly!  For an excerpt, please check out Susan's web site. 

And be sure to post a comment or question for a chance at winning the signed ARC!

The Lady Macbeth Interview: Part One

An interview with Susan Fraser King by Susan/Miranda

By now most readers of the WordWenches will know that Wench Susan/Sarah, known to the outside world as Susan Fraser King, has taken her career to new heights with the publication this month of Lady Macbeth: A Novel.  This is Susan's first historical novel, and it's already gathering well-deserved praise everywhere from Glamour to Entertainment Weekly to Library Journal -- not to mention a prominent place in the front of bookstores everywhere.  A fascinating new take on a notorious literary character, a richly textured story, and history in glorious detail: what's not for readers to love?

Or, in the words of Susan/Sarah's newest-favoritest-quote-from-a-fellow-writer, Lani Diane Rich (A LIttle Ray of Sunshine): "Lady Macbeth! I feel smarter just owning it!"

A recent "meeting of the Susans" between Susan Fraser King (aka  Wench Susan/Sarah) and Susan Holloway Scott (aka Wench Susan/Miranda) discussed Lady Macbeth (never named Susan, as far as I know) in all her delicious detail.  Part One appears today, with Part Two to follow on Wednesday.  As always, please feel free to ask additional questions that you may have. 

SHS: How did you choose Lady Macbeth as your heroine? Have you wanted to tell “her” story for a long time, or did you come across the idea while researching another book?

SFK: I’ve known for a long time that the historical Lady Macbeth, an 11th c. Scottish queen, was probably very different than the ambitious harridan of Shakespeare's play, but she didn't start blipping on my story radar until about three years ago. I was researching another medieval Scottish story and kept seeing references to Macbeth and Queen Gruoch. I got curious and followed the breadcrumbs, and realized that a few facts hid a story with real substance. Macbeth was treated by Dunnett and Tranter decades ago, and Lady Macbeth was a strong character in those stories, but I wanted to focus on her story and base it on updated history and what was possible for a Scottish woman in an age of Celts, Vikings and Saxons. The facts and possibilities were fascinating, and once I started to research and put ideas together, it developed pretty steadily from there.

SHS:  You chose authentic Celtic names for your characters that will be unfamiliar to many readers.  Can you tell us a bit about them, beginning with Gruadh, Lady Macbeth?

SFK: Some of the names were determined by historical record, so I had no choice, and I did my best to simplify the Celtic and Gaelic names while retaining authenticity. For instance, Lady Macbeth’s father in historical accounts is Boite, Boete, Bode or Bodhe. The modern equivalent is “Boyd” … um, no thanks! So I settled for Bodhe.

Macbeth’s queen is identified in a Latin document as "Gruoch filia Bodhe," or Gruoch, daughter of Bodhe, and she is also identified as Queen of Scots, and equal to Macbeth, and not a consort (a big clue to her lineage and rank). But “Gruoch” is not a known Gaelic female name, and appears only for this woman. It’s possibly a cleric's phonetic attempt at a Gaelic name. Although Gruoch is used by historians, I looked for a better alternative (besides, I kept typing “Grouch”).

Some genealogy charts listed her great-granddaughter as Gruaith or Gruadh, which is a legitimate Irish female name. Since it’s possible the child was named for her great-grandmother, a Queen of Scots, I used that for my Lady Macbeth. Though it could have been her actual name, no one seems to have made this connection before. I also gave Gruadh the nickname Rue, to spare the reader as well as the author.

SHS:  Any novel written in the first person needs a strong “storyteller” to carry the weight of the book.  Yet because Lady Macbeth is set in such an early historical time period, you didn’t have the letters, diaries, or journals that often inspire first-person writers.  How did you research and develop Gruadh’s strong narrative voice?

SFK: While you were writing your 17th century novels (your next one will be The King’s Favorite, about Nell Gwyn, from NAL in July 2008 -- Susan/Sarah’s plug for Susan/Miranda!) I was a bit envious of the fabulous, detailed sources you had for each woman—journals, diaries, letters, accounts of all kinds. Sigh!! The historical Lady Macbeth has one direct document to back her up. We don’t know a thing about her personally, and whatever historians and novelists come up with has to be inferred from evidence of the political circumstances around her, what is factually known of the men in her life, and what we know of the traditions of the Celtic society, women in particular; even things like what is known of the environment (the warming of a small ice age, the introduction of new crops, the trade routes, the structure of wooden fortresses, etc.) was very helpful to creating a picture of the woman.

The woman needed a strong voice to carry the book, and she couldn’t sound too modern. So I read widely in Celtic myth, poetry, chants, charms, and songs. I’ve done that for years anyway out of natural interest, since I love that area of myth and literature. That, and years of medieval studies, taught me the general voice of the times.

Whenever you read extensively in whatever era you’re writing about, you’ll naturally absorb the voice. By delving into Celtic lit, I absorbed cadence and phrasing, and little turns of phrase, all of which came in handy in creating Lady Gruadh’s voice. Years of work in medieval studies also helped me understand medieval phrasing and medieval opinions, which helped too. In the past few years I’ve also studied some Gaelic, which helped give me a sense of how the character might speak. I tried to keep in mind that whatever Lady Gruadh said would be “translated” into English for the modern reader.

SHS: Thank you, Susan (and thank you for the shout-out for Nell, too*g*)  I hope all of you will please join us again on Wednesday for Part Two.  And if you have any questions for Susan, please ask away!

The Cottage Countess

Hi, Jo here, with the toys en masse.

I thought I'd offer a strange but true story from the past. If we tried to pass this one off in a romance novel, we'd probably be told it was unbelievable.

The Cottage Countess

In 1789 a stranger arrived in the Shropshire village of Great Bolas and took a room at the inn. He introduced himself as John Jones and though clearly an educated gentleman, took part in village affairs, even playing the violin in the inn for dancing. The village beauty, 16-year-old Sarah Hoggins, took a great fancy to him, but he was twenty years older.

People were generally suspicious of strangers, especially strangers with ample money and no need to work, and some even began to say he was a highwayman. Instead of leaving, John Jones bought some land and planned a house there, Bolas Villa. He left to go to England, but only to git the money. When he returned, he moved into the Hoggins home until his new house was ready, and there was a general expectation that he would marry Sarah.

However, at this point he  revealed the truth, or so the story goes. As with many old tales, it's not clear what's truth and what's whitewash.

He wasn't John Jones, he was Henry Cecil, nephew of the Earl of Exeter, and he was already married. As a young man, he had married Emma Vernon, but the marriage had failed and she'd run off with another. At this time of stress, Henry had assumed the persona of John Jones and ended up in Great Bolas.

The aspect that makes me wonder if he did tell all is that not long afterward "John Jones" and Sarah Hoggins were married. From the parish register.  "13 Apr 1790  No. 54. John Jones of this parish and Sarah Hoggins of this parish were married in this Church by Licence this 13 Apr 1790 by me Cresswell Tayleur. This Marriage was solemnized between Us John Jones, Sarah Hoggins In the presence of John Picken, Sarah Adams."

Henry did manage to get a divorce, but not until June 1791. At that point he and Sarah married again in London, and it's after that that their first child is born. Again, from the register. "27 Feb 1792 Sophia, d. of John and Sarah Jones was baptd.  27 Feb 1792 " That's close to 9 months, which makes me wonder if the first, bigamous marriage wasn't consummated. After all, Henry would know that if he and Sarah had a son outside of legitimate marriage the son could never inherit the family title. But in that case, why marry at all? Bigamy was a serious crime.

Anyone want to speculate?

However, in 1794 his uncle died and he became Earl of Exeter and owner, among other properties, of Burghley House, one of the most impressive and important Elizabethan palaces. Sarah was tossed into aristocratic life and there seems no record of her reactions.

I hope this couple enjoyed happiness and love. They were not to have the "happily ever after", alas. Sarah died three weeks after the birth of her third son in 1797 at the age of 24. Nearly four years later, Exeter married the Duchess of Hamilton, who had been divorced in 1794 "at her suit" according to this site.

Divorce initiated by the woman was rare. If anyone has time to try to chase up the details of that, have at it! By the way, he was the son of one of the famous Gunning sisters.

Henry died in 1804 at the age of 50, and was succeeded by his son Brownlow, aged 9. He died in 1867.

John Jones/Henry Cecil seems to have settled into the life of a country gentleman with ease and perhaps he and Sarah would have been happier like that. There seems no way to tell. This is Burghley. You can take a little tour of it here. As you'll see below, the general belief is that when Henry took Sarah there she had no idea what was ahead of her. Want to speculate on her reaction?

I found most of this information in a little booklet called "The Lord  of Burghley and Sarah Hoggins," by David J L Elderwick, which seems to have been self published in 1982.

I did find one story about this marriage in an anecdote about the artist, Lawrence. "His Lordship's first marriage had been unfortunate, and his second was at least singular. Disturbed in mind at the unhappy result of his first union, he had retired to a farm-house near Shrewsbury, where he lived incog., and solaced himself in rural musings. His command ofmoney, and his want of employment, at last set the busy gossips of the neighbourhood at conjectures, and inferences were drawn not very favourable to his character and sources of indolent support. At last, his host thought of cutting acquaintance, partly on this score, and partly because the neighbourhood began to  think him attached to his daughter. "But," replied the noble recluse, " what would you say, if I really loved Sarah Hoggins, and married her ?" This altered the case. The wedding was agreed upon, the parties repaired to Burghley, and until they arrived at the splendid palace of the Cecils, Sarah Hoggins had no idea that she was to be the Marchioness of Exeter." 

Did he perhaps only marry her to preserve his protective country escape?

What do you think? Is truth stranger than fiction?  The hero of one of my stories in Lovers and Ladies has a wife who's run off.

Do you know of other unlikely historical matches? Please share the details. And just to share the thrill, A Lady's Secret, which will be out in just over a month (yikes!) has received a wonderful review from Romantic Times. "Extraordinary storyteller Beverley mixes witty repartee, danger and simmering  sensuality with her strong and engaging characters, including a fetching  Papillon, in this delightful, delicious gem of a book." Doesn't get much better than that, does it!

Raise a glass of champagne, port, or ice tea -- whatever is your tipple of choice.

Jo

The fallen woman

From Loretta:

In historical romances, we often encounter women who become prostitutes or courtesans in order to survive.  An innocent girl is seduced by a blackguard and cast out by her family.  A widow finds herself penniless.  A governess is impregnated by the dissolute master of the house.  Forced to fend for themselves, the women resort to the oldest profession.

It didn't always happen that way, though.

“I shall not say why and how I became, at the age of fifteen, the mistress of Lord Craven.  Whether it was love, or the severity of my father, or the depravity of my own heart, or the winning arts of the noble Lord, which induced me to leave my paternal roof and place myself under his protection, does not now much signify:  or if it does, I am not in the humour to gratify curiosity in this matter.”

Thus begin the Memoirs of Harriette Wilson (1786-1846), the most famous of the Regency era’s courtesans.  (Note re my last blog:  Harriette was 15; the Earl of Craven was 31).  She wasn’t the only one in her family to flee respectability.  Her sisters left home, too (one at thirteen), to become Fashionable Impures.  Harriette was and is the memorable one, however.  Her memoirs, first published in 1825, are amazingly readable, and that is not something one can say about most early 19th C prose.  As I’ve noted before, there’s a reason some authors live on and others don’t.

The memoirs offer many clues to Harriette’s popularity.  Apparently, she was not deemed a great beauty.  But she was great fun, as the insouciant beginning of her tale promises. Though what passed for wit then might make us scratch our heads, she could hold her own with the men.  She was a saucy wench.

Being entertaining was a crucial skill in a courtesan’s repertoire--but to understand this, we need to understand what a courtesan was, and how she differed from prostitutes.

My shorthand definition of a courtesan is usually “high priced call girl.”  That’s grossly oversimplifying and perhaps misleading.  It’s hard to convey to a 21st century world what courtesans were.

Something like high-priced call girls did exist in Georgian times.  One finds in Harris's List of Covent-Garden Ladies a “Miss ___, at Mrs. Ross’s, No. 7, Wardour-street.” She charged five guineas, where the majority charged half a guinea to a guinea.  A guinea was one pound, one shilling.  In today's money, that seems to be nearly £100 (about $200). 

Women like Harriette were more closely related to the courtesans of, say, 17th century Venice (this painting is of the famous Veronica Franco) or ancient Greece, though not quite the same, either.  The courtesans of earlier times were very well educated and cultured.  They might dance, sing, play an instrument, write poetry (as Franco did).  Harriette and her ilk were not educated in this way, yet they filled a similar function.  Men associated with courtesans not simply for sex but for conversation and entertainment, in societies where marriages were made for political and dynastic reasons and wives and husbands tended to live in separate worlds.

Courtesans lived in the man’s world, a freer world.  They paid a high price for their freedom, but one can understand why some chose this life.  The aria “Sempre libera,” from La Traviata, might well be their theme song.

The respectable woman woman was bound by rules.  No sex or even knowledge of sex before marriage.  Stand so, sit so, speak so.  She doesn’t want to appear too intellectual or too opinionated.  Until she’s launched into Society, she’s had little to do with gentlemen outside her family.  Being closely chaperoned, she’s not likely to learn much more about them until she marries one of them.  Our young lady may be beautiful and have a delightful personality --but she’s an innocent, and men are expected to be on good behavior with her. 

With the Harriette Wilsons of the world, men behaved more or less as they did among themselves.  With such women, the men could behave as they did with other men.

Scholars and others have pointed out that the only time a woman had power over men was during courtship.  A gently bred girl gets a taste of this power (if she’s popular) during her Season, and one can certainly understand her wishing to prolong the experience. 

But courtesans wielded such power over the course of their careers.  They suffered the same--if not worse--vicissitudes their more respectable sisters endured but they had the power to say yes or no to men.  If her protector was unsatisfactory, a courtesan could replace him.  She might travel where she liked, see whom she liked, without asking anybody’s permission.  She did not have to mind her Ps and Qs.  She could tell dirty jokes, though she would avoid appearing too coarse.  In short, she might behave more like a man.

For women like Harriette,  the path to sin was the road to freedom.

This isn’t to say it couldn’t be the road to misery, or that choosing this path wasn't an enormous gamble, with the odds against her.  A courtesan’s career was bound to be brief, and though Harriette lived a long life, many died young, often in the gutter. OTOH, being respectably married wasn’t security for everyone.  A spouse might gamble away the family fortune. (Harriette did marry, and it was her husband who spent the money she’d made with her memoirs.)  For the courtesan, venereal disease was practically a certainty.  Yet it was a possiblity for the respectable wife of any man who’d had premarital or extramarital sex--and a large segment of the male aristocracy was promiscuous.  The courtesan risked death in childbirth and miscarriage, and the death of children, as other women did.  Titled ladies had no guarantees their marriages would be safe or stable.  They might be abused or abandoned or divorced.  Meanwhile, a courtesan might marry a nobleman.  (Harriette’s sister Sophia married Lord Berwick--when he was forty-two and she was still a teenager.)  Life wasn't easy on women, respectable or not.  It's not hard to understand why some women went for pleasure and freedom:  Play now, pay later.

Why did Harriette run away with Lord Craven?  Was it for any of the reasons she suggested?  Or was she a woman who chafed at the restrictions of her time--a woman better suited to the world of the early 21st century, say, than the early 19th?  We’ll never know for sure.  But when I recall that she was a teenager when she bolted, I find myself thinking that maybe Harriette was one of those girls who just wanted to have fun.  At 15, how many think of consequences?

photo credit (image of Harriette from Frontispiece of the 1825 edition)

So let’s have some fun and pretend.  Imagine you’re a young woman of Harriette’s time.  What path do you think you'd follow?  Would you believe in the rules and do your best to follow them?  Would you follow the rules but chafe under them?  Or would you to take the gamble of being a Bad Girl?

HAIR--Flaxen, waxen...

   Pat here, obsessing over hair:

How many of you hate your hair? Wave your hands!  I don’t think I’ve ever met a person who has expressed satisfaction with their hair. If they have straight, they want curly, and vice versa. Blondes highlight and rinse their hair to be more blond. (and just spelling “blonde” correctly is a challenge requiring a sentence diagram!)  Brunettes would rather be red or blond, although I’m not certain I’ve ever met anyone who wanted to be a brunette. 

And because I don’t have room for a deep psychological analysis of why hair is so important to our self image, I’ll stick with the superficial: human nature doesn’t change much over the years. One has to assume our historical heroes and heroines obsessed as much as we do over their looks. And locks. As far back as the Greeks, women were using henna and decorating their hair with expensive ornaments. Roman women used curling irons—proving again that we’re never satisified with what we have—and they favored gold hair powder and often wore wigs. Even the men attended public barber shops. 

And everyone’s seen those horrible portraits of Renaissance women with their high brows and hair pulled tight enough for migraines—they not only plucked their eyebrows to achieve that look, but they plucked their entire hair line!  Owwww.  Almost as bad as the sixties when teenage girls ironed their hair and slept on orange juice cans to achieve that “natural” look.   Is it that one can't be beautiful without pain?

Since characterization—what makes our heroes and heroines tick—is a favorite interest of mine, I’m quite enamored of the psychology of hair. Heck, we’ve even had a play written about it.  Remember the song from HAIR?  "I want it long, straight, curly, fuzzy, snaggy, shaggy, ratty, matty, oily, greasy, fleecy… " Quite an ode!  Repulsive, maybe, but topical. <G> 

But have you ever noticed that we seldom give our characters bad hair?  Oh yeah, a few chicklit characters will scream about their hair, but these are modern characters who have hairdressers that can turn the most cantankerous mop into a gleaming shiny crown for a price. But our Regency heroines didn’t have access to electric curlers and mousse.  Wouldn’t they have bemoaned a frizzy hair day? That they were a mousy brown and not a shining blond?  What about their mothers, how often do they complain that their hair is getting thin as well as gray?  And our heroes!  How many bald ones have you noticed?  I love the website describing men's “mullets”  through the ages. Really, men have worn some form of mullet for centuries!  The picture of Gainsborough's Blue Boy looks like some greasy character dragged out of an alleyway after a bad night on the town.

Can’t you imagine that more than a few of our rakish bachelors started finding a comb full of hair when they reached their sophisticated thirties? Wouldn’t many of them be fretting over a receding hairline and a bald spot on the back of their heads?

It’s not just the looks of our characters that concern me.  How a person feels about her appearance is extremely important in how she behaves.  A heroine with frizzy mousy hair would want to cover it up.  In the Regency era, she might buy elaborate hats and bonnets, and prefer daytime outings when she could hide beneath headgear over elegant evening occasions requiring that she bare her pate for inspection.  Of course, in much of the Georgian era, the wealthy had access to excessive, expensive powdered wigs.  That might cover up thinning hair and mousy locks, but the weight of those things must have been crushing. How many went around with aching heads? Not to mention the occasional mouse or flea infestation since the things were never washed. Ugh, shudder. I prefer less wealthy Georgian heroines, probably for that reason.

Another facet is how other people react to a character's hair. I don't care how brilliant our gallant heroine might be, but if she lacks shimmering thick locks, people won't look her way to discover how intelligent she is.  Maybe curly-haired heroines are feisty for a reason--it's the only way they can get attention!

I’m as guilty of giving my characters gorgeous hair as the next person for just that attention-getting reason. Healthy, handsome hair has always been a symbol of beauty and virility.  To some extent, the behavior is probably genetic.  Why would a cave man grab the hair of a nearly bald or gray woman to haul her home if he could have one with young, healthy hair?  The young one would be much more likely to reproduce. Or not fight back if her suitor had lovely hair, too. <G>

The question teasing at the back of my mind is this—What would happen if fashion dictated that we must all be bald? Or cover our hair so it can’t be seen? How would we judge people then?  By the size of their noses? The color of their skin?  The size of their eyes or forehead?  The number of wrinkles? No doubt, all of the above, choosing priorities by culture. 

Wouldn’t it be lovely if we could all put our characters and intelligence out for display instead of something so superficial as our looks? Maybe we should tattoo our IQs on our foreheads!

Okay, I’m ready, how do you feel about your hair? And what characteristic would you prefer become symbolic of health and virility?

And the Wiener is ...

Debbie Jay, you're the lucky winner of The Stolen Princess by Anne Gracie!  Please send your mailing address to me and I'll pass it on to Anne.  Congratulations, Debbie, and thanks for visiting the Word Wenches. 

We hope to see more of you in the future, Debbie.  Be sure to stop by on 2/25 and 2/27 when Susan/Miranda interviews Susan/Sarah in connection with the release of Lady Macbeth: A Novel, by Susan Fraser King.

And now, check out the announcement below, elevating Anne Gracie to the status of an Honorary Word Wench!

Anne Gracie, we dub thee an Honorary Word Wench!

Anne, thanks so much for being our guest here!  You are now an official Honorary Word Wench and entitled to put the letters HWW after your name.  You are also welcome to visit, post, and promote future books here.

As a special gift for your giving giving us your time and energy (when in the midst of revisions!), I'm giving you this lovely virtual tiara from http://www.tiaratown.com/   

Like the tiara Callie inherited from her mother, the gems are paste, but the very best paste!  And because of its provenance, the tiara is priceless.

Wear it with pride!

Mary Jo

Anne Gracie visits from Down Under

by Mary Jo

Today we’re joined by Anne Gracie, an Australian writer of Regency historicals. (Visit her site at http://www.annegracie.com/ ) Her latest Regency historical, The Stolen Princess, was a January release.

Anne's humor, innovative plot twists, and characters have made her a reader favorite.  She has been a Rita finalist and has won numerous awards in both the U. S. and Australia.  Anne has done all kinds of interesting things, and she’s going to share some of them with us now. 

From Anne Gracie:  Mary Jo and Wenches, thanks so much for inviting me. I'm delighted to be here.

MJP:  How did you start writing?  Were you making up stories in kindergarten with a pencil clutched in one chubby fist, or did you come to the trade later?

  Anne Gracie: As a toddler I told our animals stories -- the poor creatures had to pay attention. I can't remember if I wrote stories or not: we moved all the time and a lot of stuff was tossed out with each move, so I have very little from my childhood, just my old teddy and a few beloved books.

In high school, I remember thinking I was hopeless at "creative writing" as they gave us strange literary exercises that had nothing to do with stories. I don't remember ever being asked to write a story. Essays, yes, by the hundreds.

I've always had stories in my head, though. I started writing them down when I took a year off work and went backpacking around the world on my own. Travel gives you lots of  alone time, so as well as writing in my travel journal, I wrote the stories down -- and was hooked.

(Note from MJP: On my first trip to Europe, when I stayed in hostels, I met any number of young women from Australia and New Zealand who were hitching their way around the world.  Intrepid Antipodeans!)

MJP:   What was the biggest mistake you made when you first began writing?      

  AG: I think I made every mistake in the book. ;) One was writing to US publishers offering them "my regency novel, Gallant Waif," and they all turned it down unseen, assuming it was a traditional regency. In Australia "a regency" is any book set in that period, so I didn't know to call mine a regency historical. I cut 40,000 words off it and sold it to Mills and Boon. And though M&B were wonderful to me, the sad fact is that my books with them were pulped after a month on the shelves, and I wish they'd lived a bit longer 

  MJP:  You’re our first Australian guest.  Why do you think we independent, republican colonials, whether Australian, Canadian, or Americans, love Regency historicals so much?  Despite the glut of Regencies, predictions of the death of historicals, and now an expanding range of settings, the Regency historical subgenre is still doing just fine.  Do you think this will continue?

AG:  I think "our" Regency era is, in a way, a fictional world loosely created from history by a whole body of marvelous fiction. And the more good books and movies set in that era are published, the more that world becomes real and beloved and familiar to more people, so it's very easy to step into it.

I suspect the subgenre faltered when that world became too rigid and limited, but once people stepped outside of Almacks etc, it got a whole new lease of life. The actual Regency era has everything any novelist could want - glamour, war, lords and ladies, rituals, poverty, social climbing, great art and architecture, exclusivity, technological innovation, revolutions -- there's no end to the fodder --and we can approach it as an insular society or in the wider world context. I believe that as long as people bring their own unique take on it and write fabulous new stories, the subgenre will continue to flourish. I certainly hope so.

MJP: Your January novel, the delicious THE STOLEN PRINCESS, is the first of your new Devil Riders series.  Why a princess?

AG: The princess was actually my editor's idea. I wanted to start with a story she thought was a bit "gritty" so she asked for something a little more glamorous for the first story -- I so often stick my hero and heroine in some run-down castle or country house with almost no staff.

So I took a princess ... and stuck her in a run down country house with almost no staff. She does have a tiara, though. ;)

MJP:  Some authors find that collaging is a creative aid when developing a new story.  Despite my years as a professional designer, the idea sooo doesn’t work for me, but you’re an advocate. How does the process work for you?

AG: Partly it's that I enjoy the process (legitimate procrastination) and partly it's inspiration. I only have to look at the collage and I'm plunged into the world and the mood of my book. It also helps keep my initial excitement about the story alive. That's really important to me -- I often hit the doldrums and wonder why I ever thought this idea would fly.

MJP:  Media tie-in books that are connected to movies or tv shows are common in science fiction and fantasy, but rare in romance.  You’re one of the few who has done this, with your novelization of THE TUDORS, which came out in the U. S. this past November.   How did you get the job, and what was the process like?  What was it like to follow a screenplay where the emphasis was more on drama than historical accuracy?

AG:  I got into it simply because my agent asked me if I'd like to do it. My initial reaction was to say no -- I've always written my own stuff -- but  it was an opportunity to expand my skills, so I agreed. I was given the scripts, and that was it. The series was still in production so I couldn't see the show. After I'd sent in the book, they sent me DVDs of the first 6 episodes. I still haven't seen the whole show.

I found it much more difficult than I'd first imagined, partly because of the departures the script writer had made from history. I could see why he'd done that -- it made for a smoother, more dramatic story that would be easier for a TV audience to follow -- but it made the research a bit tricky. But it was his story, not mine, and that's how I approached it.

I learned a lot from the novelization process, and ended up enjoying it, but decided I prefer writing my own stories.

MJP: My mother was a teacher and a literacy volunteer.  So are you.  As a writer, I think that giving someone the gift of reading is one of the best things anyone can do.  Do you care to expand on that?

AG: Reading has been a huge joy to me and I love to share that.  I try to show my students the fun of reading, as well as the practical use of it. We did read-along plays and simplified novels and my "book club" used to be standing room only -- anyone could come, even if they could only read three words, and the women sobbed for Jane Eyre and the men yo-ho-hoed for a bottle of rum, and they all adored A Christmas Carol. The joy and the power of stories. I love it.

I also write little beginner literacy books for adults, with very simple stories and funny cartoons. They've been amazingly successful, I guess because they're fun and also because there's so few absolute beginner level books around. They're in every public library in Canada, I believe.  (Above, an illustration from Mizuri the Cat, by Anne.)

http://pageturners.prace.vic.edu.au/

Many, many thanks for joining us.  Anne has generously agreed to donate a copy of The Stolen Princess to someone who leaves a comment here between now and Sunday night. 

Thank you, Mary Jo and wenches. It's been wonderful.

Anne is giving us a special Valentine's image of her dog! 

Best,

Mary Jo

Love Is On The Wing Again

Batten down the hatches.
Valentine's Day is tomorrow. It's the day candy stores get rid of all their stale chocolates, florists bundle together everything with petals and charge a fortune
for them, postmen bend double under their load of cards, ecard sites get busy, and local newspapers personal columns fill up with really personal items like: "I Love You Mary - from Your Own Hotsy Totsy Oochie Coochie Man."

Do I sound cynical?
Ho. Envious, more like. Because there really is nothing as charming as a heartfelt Valentine's Card. A funny one, or one with frills, and especially ones that are homemade, with crayons. And because we Romance Writer's just love True Romance.

But I must tell you that I've found human romances to be sometime things. Even the best of them. I was married for many many years and would still be if Fate had been kinder, but there were nevertheless
times, even so, and sometimes even on Valentine's Day, when the mood was NOT loveable. That's only human. If you're looking for real romance, you have to observe the animal kingdom.

Dogs are loyal masters of love, for other animals and humans. Cats too, if you're not watching. Male and female. Maybe they've learned that from having lived so closely with us for so long.

But as for wild symbols of virility?
HA!
The mighty stag is a true Alpha male, more interested in fighting with other males than cuddling with females, except when hormones are upon them.

Stallions too.
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my?
Lions are polygamists. Tigers are loners. And bears are seldom seen smooching.

When it comes to loving relationships, Reptiles aren't even in the running. Leave us not talk about insects.

And fish, (except for the seahorse, where the males incubate the young. Still,I don't know how affectionate they are with seamares) are interested in spawling, which means only needing to have a female in the general vicinity.  Whales and porpoises do neck, I've seen it. But they are, after all, mammals.

Geese are monogamists, and show true affection, as do swans.

In fact, birds are the truest symbols of love. They put us mammals to shame.

Legend says that wild birds choose their mates by Valentine's Day. Around here, they do! I feed them, and I've seen it. The Cardinals were drab until last week. Then the males grew red as flames, and the females bloomed with lipstick red beaks, and they did, indeed, pair off. Ten of them: two by two, times five. The goldfinches no longer looked like sparrows, the males grew bright yellow tummies. All the birds showed their genders and made their choices. I expect a lot of cheeping in the spring.

Bird love is nothing to scoff at. The males cooperate. They dress up and court females. They wear themselves to tatters building nests and bringing food for ther chicks. Even the dumbest: the lumbering Mourning Doves in their flimsy, silly nests, watch their nestlings by turns, as though timing themselves by a clock. Bird love is constant. I don't know if they choose the same mates year after year, but once they've chosen, they are loyal, affectionate, and loving.

Which animal's loving behavior would you rather have? A magnificent stallion's? Or a cocker spaniel's?
An MGM lion roaring at you? Or a pussycat purring?

And yet when we scorn men we call them "dogs" and "hounds" and "tomcats"

Why do we call handsome exciting males: "Regency Bucks," "Stallions" and "Tigers"?

Our standards of masculinity could use a dust off, I think. On Valentine's Day we could do worse than watch the birdies.

What do you think?

Photo cred: Original bird cards by Pepperina Press.

Anne Gracie on Friday!

from Mary Jo

Good news!  Anne Gracie and I have finally synched our schedules, and she'll be a Word Wench guest this Friday, the 15th.  An Australian writer of Regency historicals, Anne's books generate buzz on readers' lists regularly.  She'll be talking about her January book, THE STOLEN PRINCESS, her novelization for the Showtime series, THE TUDORS--and some topics that haven't shown up in Wenchdom before!  Be sure to join us Friday to visit with Anne Gracie.

The Lady Has Arrived!

Susan Sarah here, so glad to finally be able to say – wahooooo, LADY MACBETH is available in bookstores tomorrow!! 

On Tuesday, February  12, 2008, LADY MACBETH will be (should be!) in bookstores everywhere, and online stores will be shipping copies. So let’s all cheer--hurray, hurrah!--because this has been a very long wait. I owe thanks and appreciation to the Wenches, who have been wonderfully supportive throughout the long process of writing, research, and production. Thanks are due to our readers and Wench visitors as well, for encouragement and interest in this book, and in all our Wenchly books.

  Last week I was sooooo thrilled to finally get actual copies of the book. The editorial, art and production teams at Crown have done an outstanding job, creating a beautiful book that is, I hope, just a pleasure to own and to handle. It has high quality touches throughout -- light metallic gold glossing on the cover details, a smooth finish jacket, parchment end papers, a stunning map and genealogy tree…and a fabulous surprise under the cover jacket! I didn't know about this special detail, which my editor kept a surprise. For me, it's one of the nicest things about the physical book, and it holds real meaning for the story, and for me personally.

...And I’m not going to tell you what it is. If you can get to a bookstore tomorrow and find the book, look under the jacket and you’ll discover the secret for yourself. If you do, please report back to us here. You can choose to keep the secret or to reveal it -- I'll leave that up to you.

Later in February, we Susans (Susan-Miranda and me, Susan-Sarah) will do an in-depth two-part Susans-Only interview about the research and other aspects of LADY MACBETH, so I’ll save all that authorish commentary for February 25 and 27. Stay tuned -- we'll have fun with it.

For today, to celebrate the launch of the book, I would like to give you more of the story. Last month I posted the Prologue when we talked about beginnings here at Word Wenches....

So here’s Chapter One of LADY MACBETH: A Novel, by Susan Fraser King . . . .
Well, part of it. The link at the end will take you to the rest of the chapter, if you would like to read on.  Enjoy!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Susan Fraser King breathes new and vibrant life into a woman who has become an archetype....Not since THE MISTS OF AVALON have I been so transported by elegant lyric prose, a great galloping story, and the unforgettable life and voice of this Queen of the Scots. Highly recommended."                
- Eileen Charbonneau, Merritt Bookstore, Cold Spring NY, for BookSense.com

“King manages to challenge all our preconceptions without turning the strongest female character in literature into a pantywaist. Her footwork on this fictional ground is sure and graceful.”
-- BookPage

CHAPTER ONE

Anno Domini 1025...

Scarce nine the first time I was stolen away, I remember a wild and unthinking fright as I was snatched from my pony's back and dragged into the arms of one of the men who rode toward my father's escort party. We were heading north to watch our kinsman, King Malcolm, second of the name, hold an autumnal court on the moot hill at Scone. Proud of my shaggy garron and painted saddle, I insisted on riding alone in the length between my father Bodhe, older brother Farquhar, and several of their retainers. Then horsemen emerged from a fringe of trees and came straight for us. As men shouted and horses reared, a warrior reached out and plucked me up like a poppet.
   The memories of that day are vivid but disjointed. His furs smelled rancid and smoky; his whiskered chin was broad from my view beneath, trapped before him in the saddle; his fingers on the reins were grimy and powerful. I can recall the russet brown of his cloak, but I do not recall his name. I know it was never spoken in my hearing for years afterward.
    Kicking, shrieking, twisting like an eel in the arms of that stranger, I managed to tear his dagger from his belt, slicing my thumb like a sausage. With no idea how to handle the thing, I meant to defend myself. A fierce urge insisted upon it.
    He snatched the dagger back, but next I tore the large round brooch from his cloak, shredding the wool, and whipped it upward to jab it into his cheek. That slowed him. Swearing, he released me for an instant, and I lurched from the saddle, falling and breaking my arm in my thud to cold earth. Rolling by accident more than intent, I narrowly missed the forelegs of a horse as my kinsmen thundered past me.
    Shouting then, and steel and iron clashed, and within minutes of yanking me from my pretty saddle, the man was dead, and two of his guard with him. My father and the others took them down with swift and ugly certainty.
    Huddled beside the road on the frosted earth, I watched, arm aching, heart slamming, while men fought and died. Until then, I had never seen a skirmish, nor so much blood. I had heard steel ring against steel in the practice yard of our fortress in Fife, but I had never seen blade sink into flesh, nor heard the soft, surprised gasp as the soul abandons the body without warning. Since then, I have heard it too often.
    I own that cloak pin still, good bronze and smooth jet, and I will never wear it. In the little casket with my jewels, its dusky gleam reminds me to stay strong and wary.
    My brother Farquhar died of the wounds he took in my defense. I saw the angled sprawl of his body, though my father's men shielded me from the full sight. I remember, too, the taste of my salt tears, and my father's roar of grief echoing in the chill air. . . .

    My blood had even more merit once Bodhe had no other heir. Because I am descended in a direct line from Celtic kings, the purest royal blood courses through me and blushes my skin. I could prick a finger and it would be gold to some.
    I am Gruadh inghean Bodhe mac Cinead mhic Dubh--daughter of Bodhe son of Kenneth son of Duff. My grandfathers going back were kings of Scots, and I was born a princess of the house of Clan Gabhran that boasts Kenneth mac Alpin, the first king of Scots and Picts together. The line reaches back to the Picts who were native to this land, and the Scotti who came over from Ireland to settle as the Dalriadans in Argyll. We are proud of our heritage, and know the old names by heart: son of, son of.

    Because a man could claim the throne of Scotland by marrying me, I was not safe. Nor were my kinsmen, come to that: if they were killed, one after another, our line would be eliminated at its heart, making room for others' ambitions. Such is the way of things when one's heritage is ancient, pure, and royal.

    Little good did the blood of ancients do me. I was like a lark spiraling upward, unaware of the hawks above judging time and distance to the prize. . . .

To read further, please go to www.susanfraserking.com, choose EXCERPT, then scroll down past the Prologue to continue Chapter One of LADY MACBETH. . . .

(And please sign up for my newsletter to be eligible for a book giveaway!)

~Susan

Wieners & Wenches - John Dierdorf & RfP

The Wenches thank our first Honorary male Wench, John Dierdorf -- and what a spendid and popular guest he was. We know you all enjoyed his post and comments.

In typical grand generosity, we have a special gift for John:  Duke Humphrey’s Library, Bodleian, Oxford University, England. (Photo credit)

From Wikipedia:

"Whilst the Bodleian Library, in its current incarnation, has a continuous history dating back to 1602, its roots date back even further. The first purpose-built library known to have existed in Oxford was founded in the fourteenth century by Thomas Cobham, Bishop of Worcester. This small collection of chained books was situated above the north side of the University Church of St Mary the Virgin on the High Street. This collection continued to grow steadily, but when, between 1435 and 1437 Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (brother of Henry V of England), donated a great collection of manuscripts, the space was deemed insufficient and a larger building was required. A suitable room was finally built above the Divinity School, and completed in 1489. This room continues to be known as Duke Humfrey’s Library."

There, John, that should keep you busy for a while, and I don't suppose the Bodleian will really miss it.

And speaking of books, John and I have chosen a winner for the ARC of Lovers and Ladies. It's RfP (ReadForPleasure.com) for her delightful translation of John's challenge. RfP, please contact me or Sherrie with your mailing address.  (And congratulations!)

~ Jo

Too young to marry?

From Loretta:
Some years ago I wrote a novella, “The Mad Earl’s Bride,” for an anthology titled THREE WEDDINGS AND A KISS.  The Big Name on the cover was Katheleen E. Woodiwiss, and the book rocketed to the top of all the bestseller lists.  I’m not sure it ever went out of print, but whether it did or didn’t it’s decidedly in print now.  Wench Susan/Miranda called me from a Borders bookstore to tell me it was being pushed to the front of the store.  This month it’s part of their Buy 4 get 1 Free deal.

All of which fits in nicely with today’s bridal theme.

Sharon Baumgartner is going to win an autographed Loretta Chase book for asking the following question:
It seems like most of the heroines in historical romances are 18, 19, 20.  There are some older, but usually those are referred to as being VERY old to be still looking for a husband and pretty much firmly "on the shelf".  When my daughter was 18 or 19, I would have been very concerned about her getting married, thinking that she was not at all mature enough for taking that step.  I know that a lot of marriages back in the Regency era (or whatever era the historical might be set in) were arranged by the families for reasons having nothing to do with personal selection (except in our favorite books, of course).  But my question is were the young women back then that much more mature than girls today?  Even if they had been trained to do all of the things to run a household, etc., that they were expected to do, would they have been emotionally ready for marriage?  Or do authors give them the correct age for marrying at the time but write them with more maturity?

Let me start by saying that my paternal grandmother was married by parental arrangement when she was fourteen years old.  My maternal grandmother married for love (it was a shocking thing to do in Albania at that time) when she was sixteen.  In those days, the bride went to live in the groom’s household where his mother ruled and her daughters-in-law did what they were told.  This happened in the 20th century.  Were my grandmothers more mature than today’s 16-year-old girl?  Possibly.  Or maybe not.  Maybe they simply had less freedom and fewer choices.  And maybe maturity depends on the girl.

In my grandmothers’ time and place, girls didn’t have a lot of choices.  They got married and had children.  They would have been trained for marriage:  how to run a household, cook & clean& sew & so forth--or (depending on socioeconomic class) supervise those who did.  So they were better prepared for marriage than today’s average American sixteen-year-old.

When creating women for my stories, I assume that, while manner and mores change, young women of two hundred years ago must have something in common with those of today.  Some girls are mature and responsible at a young age.  Then there are the ones like Lydia Bennett of PRIDE & PREJUDICE.  It’s hard to imagine Lydia ever maturing, isn’t it?  Look at her sisters Jane and Elizabeth.  They’re in their early twenties, and far more mature than their mother.

Mature or not, most women needed to marry, and the simple fact was and is, young women--generally speaking--are more attractive to men--generally speaking.  Look at all those Gidget & Geezer movies.  Look at all those Gidget & Geezer marriages in the land of millionaires and movie stars.  Do the Geezers care if their Gidgets are mature?

Women had then, as many do today, a real fear that past a certain magical age (past their “first bloom”), they would become unappealing or invisible to men.  This is a truly worrisome prospect for some families, absolutely, in the Regency era.   Think about Mrs. Bennett, frantic to get her daughters married ASAP.  She had a genuine economic concern:  When her husband died, she & her girls could be thrown out of their house, as was the case with the Dashwood women in SENSE AND SENSIBILITY.  Think of the sorry plight of genteel but impoverished single women of this time.  How do they support themselves?  Mostly, they can’t.  Mostly, they depend on others.  Being “on the shelf” wasn’t simply rejection; it could be a financial catastrophe. 

In Judith Schneid Lewis’s IN THE FAMILY WAY: Childbearing in the British Aristocracy 1750-1860, I find ladies marrying from the age of 15 (Elizabeth, Lady Holland, b 1771) to 37 (Susan, Marchioness of Stafford, b 1731).  Princess Charlotte, King George IV’s heir, married at age 20.  Queen Victoria was 21.  The majority were married between the ages of 18 and 20, but there are quite a few marrying in their early to mid-twenties.  Anne Isabella Milbanke was 23 when she married Lord Byron.

Mainly, though, as in the books Sharon refers to, upper class women were marrying at 18, 19, 20.  And from what I’ve read, they were at about the same maturity level as young women of 18, 19, and 20 today.  The difference is that they were expected to get married at that age and were trained to be wives and mothers as well as in the duties of the lady of the house.

I’ve made my heroines various ages but tend toward older heroines--mid to late twenties, and one heroine (Mirabel of MISS WONDERFUL )thirty-one.  This is mainly because I simply find them more interesting when they have some life experience.  And that’s why, too, a number of my heroines are widows.   Whatever their age, I’ve made them mature, though I try to show why they might be more so or more responsible than other girls of their social class and age.  Being left motherless at a young age, being educated in an unusual way, having to fend for oneself, having to cope with a distant or psychologically troubled parent, etc.--these are all ways of giving a character maturity beyond her years.  Gwendolyn Adams, the heroine of “The Mad Earl’s Bride,” is one such character.  She needs to be levelheaded and mature, because the arranged marriage she agrees to is a very challenging one.

This is a big topic, and other Wenches might be addressing it in weeks to come.  But for now I'd like to hear your views on any of the matters I've touched on.  For instance, do you think young women were/are emotionally ready for marriage at 18, 19, 20?  How do you feel about young heroines?  Do you think young women 100-200 years ago were or weren’t like young women of today?

The Words, They are a-Changing

Pirate Billie (you'll see the relevance later) and I are delighted to bring you John Dierdorf as a guest. I've know John for a long time through our mutual admiration of Dorothy Dunnett, but he's also a reader of historical romance who's been entertaining my chat list for years with his interest in the meanings and derivation of words, especially in a historical context. If you think that sound dry, boy are you wrong.

So, heeeeeeeeeeeers John! In his own words. *G*

The Words, They are a-Changing

The Regency was only 200 years ago, and we tend to think that the English language of 1800 was more or less like ours — certainly nothing like the changes from Shakespeare's time, let alone Chaucer's. A surprising number of our words didn't exist in 1800, however; I have a whole list of them on my web page. Some are very innocent-looking: "switch", for example. It is railroad slang from the 1830's and had no
meaning except a slender wooden branch before then. Several color words are from 1850 or later — magenta, tangerine, ecru, beige. The first use of "sex" to mean "sexual relations" — have sex, great sex, and so on — was in the 1920's. (Not surprisingly, the first recorded user of this sense was D.H. Lawrence.)  Intransigent is from 1880. Flamboyant, 1870. There were no orphanages until about 1850; before that they were orphan asylums or foundling homes.

Amusingly, some common words and phrases in Regency Romances have evidently never existed in English.  Georgette Heyer was not above making up a plausibly archaic expression now and then, and some of her coinages are now part of what Jo calls "Prinnyworld". For example, "town bronze", "barque of frailty", "bit of muslin", and "first stare" [of fashion] were unknown before Heyer's books. "Delope" in a Georgian or Regency also is due to Heyer; it was recorded once in about 1830 and then not until her novels in the 1950's. "Widgeon" has the opposite history. The last recorded instance of calling a silly person a widgeon was in 1741; the word was completely unknown in Georgian and Regency speech. Heyer used it frequently, though.

(Jo: A widgeon is actually a bird, though whether it's stupid or not as birds go, I don't know. I borrowed this image from this page. Another bird there is a coot, which could be a male widgeon, perhaps?)

Even more insidiously, quite a few words have changed meaning, so that a phrase could be perfectly correct in its historical context but make a modern reader get the wrong idea. Here are a few examples of sentences from a hypothetical 19th-century novel which would cause most present-day readers to jump.

• Lord Redstart was so fastidious he would only drink wine which had been defecated by his butler.
(It meant to purify or remove sediment.) 

• The governess reported to Lady Redstart that her four-year-old daughter had a spectacular orgasm that morning.
(Until the 20th century it meant "fit of passion" with no sexual  connotation. In modern terms the little girl threw a tantrum.)

• Everyone knows that Prime Minister Disraeli and Cardinal Newman are perverts.
(A pervert was a religious apostate — a convert seen from the rear.)

• Sir Walter Scott wrote stirring romances about the Albanians.
(No, Loretta, you were not the first. :) Well into the 1800's, an Albanian meant either a resident of Scotland (Albion, Latin Alba) or of the Adriatic country. A romance was an adventure novel until  about 1920.)

• Lady Redstart has extremely enormous eyes.
(It meant "unusual" — she had mismatched eyes, one emerald green and one brown.)

• In the parlor, Miss Andrews performed a song which consisted mainly of expletives.
(An expletive is a filler word — tra, la, la and so on. She was  singing "Deck the Halls".)

• The vicar's sermon was on one of the most improper passages of the Bible.
(Improper meant metaphorical; the text was the 23rd Psalm. Pilgrim's  Progress is an extremely improper novel.)

• The governess informed the countess that she had very measly  children.
(You got it — they had the measles.)

• Lord Redstart threatened the highwayman with his dick.
(You have a very dirty mind; it meant a riding whip until about 1900.)

• Lady Redstart's head protruded from an embroidered velvet toilet while her maid dressed her hair.
(A toilet was a small decorative cloth; it's more recognizable if  spelled "towelette".)

• The noted sportsman Sir S------ was killed by an enraged bugle. He  had been distracted by several muskets flying overhead.
(A bugle was a wild ox, while a musket was a small hawk.)

• The countess was horrified to see a midget sitting in the parlor and  ordered a footman to kill it.
(Until the late 19th century, it was a small fly -- a midge-ette.)

• Viscount C----- is no longer admitted to polite society for having demoralized a girl he met at Almack's. It is even rumored he is an amphibian.
(In Regency times, demoralize didn't mean lower the morale, it meant lower the morals; to debauch or corrupt. Amphibious is straight Greek for "double life", and the implication was that he was  bisexual.)

• Miss Andrews looked delicate, but she could tackle a horse.
(It meant to saddle; c.f. "tack".)

Over time, I have built up a book-length web page on English word origins. Click here to visit. You are welcome  to check it out if only to find out how "porcelain" comes from a Latin obscenity connected to pigs, how pencil is the same word as penicillin, and how Guinevere came to share a syllable with a penguin.

'll finish up this little essay with the following quote, which I leave as an exercise for the reader to translate into modern English. It looks like the start of a Monty Python routine, but I promise it is a perfectly serious sentence:

"The terrific pirate brandished a naked brown sable he had withdrawn from his vagina, while the rest of his bloodthirsty tangerines advertised their pernicious trombones."

Jo: Thank you, John. That's wonderful.

Now, have a go at that paragraph, folks. Those of you from my list can't play, because you know the translation, but please do participate in all other ways.

Have you come across words in historicals and wondered if they were appropriate for the time and place? Or simply wondered about the origins of a odd one. Here's your chance to find out. As a reader, how important is it for writers to get the words right, or do you prefer language that's more comfortable for you? Would you, for example, rather have characters talk about having sex, even though it's  an anachronism, or have them mention  carnal intimacy, or use terms like swiving or tupping?

I'm offering a book as prize to the most interesting or entertaining comment to John's blog. This will be a completely subjective decision made by John and me late tomorrow -- Thursday-- night. The prize will be an Advance Reading copy of the April reissue of two of my traditional regency romances -- The Fortune Hunter and Deirdre and Don Juan. I'm sure they're jam-packed with anachronisms and such. I know so much more now. Enough to terrify a writer, really.

You can read excerpts on my web page. For links, Read my newsletter here.

Jo

 

A Long Time Ago (Sort Of)

By Susan/Miranda

For all of us who write and read about the past, historical time can be one slippery article.  Any time period other than our own slides into The Past, a place long ago and far, far away.  Or, to paraphrase another famous opening (L.P. Hartley’s wonderful  The Go-Between): The past is like another country. They do things differently there.

But it doesn’t take much to rattle this kind of comfortable assumption.  To begin with, the Past isn’t really so very far away.  My grandmothers were born in the 1890s.  One of them clearly remembered the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, and both of them recalled nattering old uncles who’d fought in the Civil War.  It’s an easy genealogical hop backwards through my grandmothers’ grandmothers, and the War of 1812, and another set of grandmothers beyond that to reach the Revolution.  Farther back than that hurts my head to calculate, but the gist of my rambling is that it doesn’t take too many generations to encompass all of American history.

Of course, the Past isn’t limited to Manifest Destiny and other high-concept historical facts.  It’s every-day stuff, too.  My teenaged daughter can’t believe that my high school yearbook features a page honoring the Future Homemakers of America club, but nary a word about girls varsity sports teams –– which is, of course, because there weren’t any.  To her, life before Title IX seems as remote as the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock.

The other morning, Turner Classic Movies was showing a silent John Barrymore movie from the early 1920s, with Barrymore playing Beau Brummell.  The Roaring Twenties somehow don’t seem that long ago to me (perhaps because that’s when my parents were born?), but Regency England does.  Yet the number of years between us and John Barrymore is roughly the same as between Barrymore and Brummell.  Whoa!

Historian Antonia Fraser delights in “link-with-history anecdotes.” In Royal Charles, her biography of Charles II, she describes one: “Dr. Martin Routh, President of Magdalene College, who died in 1854 in his hundredth year, used to say that, when young, he had known an old lady who as a little girl had seen King Charles walking with his spaniels in Oxford.” Fraser concludes that she herself, “as a child living in Oxford in the 1930s, likes to think she might have known someone old enough to have met Dr. Routh.”

My brother-in-law’s family emigrated to America from Ireland late in the 19th century.  While he has lived all his life in this country, he has visited Ireland many times, and still feels a deep connection to his family’s ties there.  Thanks to miracle of the internet (what ISN’T for sale on the internet?), he orders carefully prepared boxes of peat shipped to him, the same peat used for heating generations of Irish cottages –– literally pieces of the “old sod.” With great reverence, he’ll light a chunk outside on his deck, close his eyes, and let the distinctive scent carry him from suburban Connecticut back to the Ireland of his ancestors.  Less of a romantic, my sister-in-law forbids the peat-burning ritual inside the house, while their neighbors no doubt sniff the evening air suspiciously and consider calling the local authorities.  My brother-in-law doesn’t care: for him, that’s the scent of the Irish Past.

One last example: On the road I travel almost daily is a worn landmark sign pointing towards a “Historic Weeping Beech Tree.”  Here outside of Philadelphia, landmark signs are everywhere, but this is the only one I know that commemorates a tree.  And yes, it’s definitely a very, very old tree, an enormous American weeping beech  that spreads and sprawls in every direction (a diameter of at least 100 feet, by my guess) with branches like serpentine vines.  This beech has been certified by the local historical society as having been planted in 1703, by a Scottish Quaker farmer named Alexander Bane on land that was part of William Penn's original grant.  Of course that Friend’s idyllic farm was long ago broken up and “developed”, the stone farmhouse torn down and the rolling fields around it replaced by suburban houses and an elementary school, with the four noisy lanes of Route 202 destroying any lingering hints of Quakerly peace.

But Alexander Bane's  tree remains.  Now over three hundred years old, it’s an aging, brittle survivor, isolated and surrounded by a chain-link fence to protect it from nefarious teenagers and tow-trucks headed for the auto repair shop across the street.  Yet standing beneath its twisting branches, I think of how an aging William Penn might have visited the Bane family's farm. He might well have sat on a nearby bench with Alexander, drinking cider brought out to the men by Jane Bane on a warm summer evening: the same William Penn who was often at Whitehall Palace in London, lobbying Charles II on behalf of his colonists in Pennsylvania, the same time and place for my historical fiction books (Duchess, Royal Harlot, and King's Favorite).  Yeah, I know, it’s a stretch.  But when I look up at the leaves of that three-hundred-year-old tree, suddenly 17th century England doesn’t seem so long ago at all.

What about you?  Do you have something or some place that connects  you with the past?  What can carry you back: is it an old teacup that belonged to an ancestor, or a favorite hymn, or a nearby battlefield turned into a park?

More Happenings at the Word Wenches

On Wednesday, 2/6, John Dierdorf will be Jo's guest.  John loves the copy of the Oxford English Dictionary that lives on his computer. You know, the gazillion volume one that gives all the nuances of words and when they were first used, and where, and by whom? Through this lens, reading historical fiction takes on a new dimension--and writing it, a new challenge. But it's fun. Can that Regency duke drive a car? Can his lady wish him a cheery "hello"? Join in, find out, take some challenges, and have a chance to win an Advance Reading Copy of Jo's book, LOVERS AND LADIES. (details in the monthly newsletter which you've all signed up for, right?) This time the winner won't be a random pick, but John and Jo's selection of the person who enhanced John's visit most.

On Monday, 2/25 and Wednesday, 2/27, we'll have a two-part interview of Susan Fraser King in connection  with the release of Lady Macbeth: A Novel.  This is what we call a “two-fer” in the U.S.  It’s a two-part interview, and you also get two Susans for the price of one--Susan/Miranda will be the interviewer, and Susan/Sarah will be the interviewee. Such a deal!

P.S.  If you are Lynda Tisdell, be sure to read the announcement, below!

And the Wiener is . . .

. . . LYNDA TISDELL. Lynda, for leaving a comment on Edith's blog titled "A Loving Tradition" on January 28, you win a copy of The Choice.  Please send your mailing address to Edith, or to Sherrie at [email protected] and your book will soon be winging its way to you.  Congratulations, Lynda.

If the Prize is right...

  ...will you accept a Professor Pat post?

I’ve been taking tax classes for volunteers these past few weeks and not getting much writing done and no research at all.  So unless our readers really wish to hear about the latest IRS inanities, I’ll reach into the question bin to pull out two reader questions. The winners—Mary Falls and Kay Spears—are entitled to a Patricia Rice book of their choice—if I can find their choice. One never knows what lurks in the depths of my basement.

Mary Falls asks “what facts affect an author choosing a point of view?  Is first person writing considered more effective than the others?  Or simply a more intimate (or personal) approach?  And last, are there any statistics available on which POV is most often used?” 

I doubt if anyone has tried to tally statistics on fictional POVs, but I can tell you from years of reading experience that third person prevails, hands down, in the romance genre. I suspect first person may prevail by a slim margin in mysteries.  And chances are good, if anyone is writing in second person, it would be some person experimenting with science fiction/fantasy or literary pretensions, although there are exceptions to every rule.

Third person probably prevails in romance because we tend to concentrate on the relationship between the hero and heroine, and we want to pull out their innards and examine them to see how they work from the inside out.  That’s far easier done through the minds and eyes of both characters. There are several forms of third person, but I really don’t want to go into literature lecture mode, so check out Writesville if you want more about omniscient, objective, etc POV.

Chicklit favors first person because that genre is more interested in the heroine’s journey than in the hero’s, which is why many of them end without a true romantic relationship, just the possibility of one. First person is intimate and immediate, but the reader can only see the world through the protagonist’s POV.  The old gothics were part mystery, part romance, and favored first person to intensify the suspense, a tactic mysteries still use.  If you want the reader to see through just one set of eyes, first person is the way to go, but the experience is limiting.  We really don’t know how others see the protagonist, just how she views herself, so she’d better be a broad-minded heroine, or there’s a good chance the book will end up against a wall. That’s one of the many reasons romance editors prefer third person.

Second person is pretty impossible for most fiction. "You knew the ax would fall" just doesn’t work quite as well as "I knew the ax would fall." As pointed out earlier, “I” is immediate, putting the reader in the place of the protagonist.  “You” distances the reader from the character and the narrator, and that distance prevents the reader from being sucked into the story, even if the narrator is referring to his audience.  It may be a fun place to play, but readers aren't accustomed to it.  Just as many readers reject first person because it’s strange to their reading tastes, they’ll reject second person as far too bizarre and uncomfortable for most genres. Try the excerpt from BRIGHT LIGHTS, BIG CITY by Jay Mcinerey.

And my question, Mary, is why do you ask?  I always like to hear the story behind the story! 

Kay Spears writes “I've been trying to write for years...it's a cathartic exercise.  Anyway, when I first started writing I would put on music, but find that eventually the music was distracting me and I'd end up dancing around the room instead of writing.  Do the Wenches use music or do they find it distracting?  And have they removed "games" from the computers?”

Isn’t writing a wonderful way of pouring out all the emotion and thoughts we experience but aren’t allowed to express in everyday communication?  I think most writers write for mental and emotional therapy as well for the sheer creative joy of it.  Once we turn our writing into a business, however, the experience changes, which is a whole 'nuther topic.

Music, too, is a creative expression.  I can’t speak for all the wenches, but I can only write to background music.  Words would interfere with my writing. If you’ve been around the wenches awhile, you’ve read some of my posts about music (  EARWORMS is one example).  Catchy tunes and simple lyrics will end up in my book via my ears and fingers, bypassing my brain.  So I can play Tchaikovsky when I’m writing drama or some haunting Celtic aria while writing a tearful scene, but I’m definitely not playing anything I can dance or sing to! I've also learned the benefits of streaming radio--Wench Sherrie shared with us a great site for classical music at Live 365.  Try it.

As for games—you’ll note the reference to ADD distraction in the referenced post.  I really really REALLY don’t need any more distraction than my mind provides.  Far better that I get distracted by a text on   Aztec mysteries than sucked into a mindless game that can only frustrate me.  If I’m going to waste time, it might as well be creatively.  Probably an eldest child, over-achiever syndrome.   Or maybe I rather write about situations that I know I’ll win.  Writers do have a tendency toward Master of Our World complexes.

How about our readers--do you prefer a particular POV in general or per genre? Do you have games on your computer?  And when was the last time you got up and danced at your desk?

And if you have a question you'd like to see the Wenches expound upon, drop a note to our Wench mistress Sherrie.  You'll see her head at the bottom on the left. Give her a click!