Word Wenches

What Are You Reading?

Susan Sarah here -- it's lazy, hot, humid summertime, vacation and beach time for many, and Romance Writers of America conference time for some (including a few of the Wenches). I am packing a suitcase, too, with a bag of books sitting beside it as I prepare to go away for a few days.

Which got me to wondering what you all are reading. If you have a minute, please pick up the nearest book or two that you're currently reading, and share a little of the last page you read. I'll go first...

I'm trying something a bit different this week, a Pulitzer Prize-nominated medieval historical novel called Godric by Frederick Buechner. Written in 1980, it's the story of Godric of Finchale (pronounced "Finkle,") a 12th century English monk and hermit, famous in his day for healing and miracles, and more or less unknown to us today ... (unless you happen to be mucking about in early medieval British history as I've been doing lately). Here's Buechner, and Godric describing his younger brother, William:

Page 13 ...

Words came spilling out of him before he knew their meaning, and if there was none to listen, he'd talk to his own ten toes. He didn't care a fig for what he talked about. One matter would serve him as well as another. He'd prattle of Normans or crops or weather till the spittle gathered at the corners of his mouth, and if you made a move to flee, there'd come to his eyes a haunted look, and he'd prattle all the faster so you'd find no chink to flee him through. Words were the line that moored himto the world, I think, and he thought if ever the line should break, he'd be forever cast adrift.

I'm also reading Silent in the Grave by Deanna Raybourn (there's always more than one book in play -- fiction, nonfiction, whatever I'm writing, the back of a cereal box, the nearest catalog, bring it on!). This one's been in my TBR pile for a while, and I finally got to it, and I'm very glad I did. Lady Julia Grey takes it upon herself to investigate the murder of her husband ... I'm really enjoying the clean, excellent writing, characters both appealing and intriguing, and a story that's clever and complex....

Page 62 ...

In fact, the more I studied Mr. Brisbane, the more he resembled a chess king. Polished and hard, with a certain implacable dignity. He was darker than any man I knew, with storm-black eyes and a head of thick, waving hair to match that would have made Byron prickle with jealousy.

But my scrutiny did not amuse him. He arched a brow at me, imperious as an emperor. I was mightily impressed. He did it much better than Aunt Hermia....

And then there all are the research books I'm reading -- Ritchie's Normans in Scotland, Anderson's Sources of Scottish History, Barrow's Kingship and Unity -- while I'm working on another hardcover novel for Crown about the 11th century queen, Margaret of Scotland, Malcolm Canmore's Anglo-Saxon bride. She followed Lady Macbeth on the throne of Scotland; I've brought the former queen into her story, and I'm having a great time playing around with that!

Meanwhile, I still have some luxury time to read other writers ... later I'll read only my own work, and after a while, even the concise and shining prose on the back of the cereal box will seem like better stuff than I've got. For now, the deadline seems too far in the distance to worry my purty little head about...

I'm a bit time-dyslexic, with an overly optimistic comprehension of the Work Load vs. Time Available factors. In a few weeks that will bite me on the arse, and I'll realize I've played around long enough. Queen Margaret will want her story finished (my editor will too), and I'll get down to the sober biz of Serious Writing and Deadline Crunching. Then I'll stop reading other people's stuff for a while... but for now, I'm enjoying my summertime reading.

How about you all? What are you reading today? I'd love some new recommendations before I have to retreat into my author cave once again....

~Susan Sarah

Heroes

by Mary Jo

A good novelist does a lot of research, and it isn’t all Regency gowns and carriages, fun and useful though such studies are.  Human behavior is more basic than costumes, and that means social history and psychology.

Having a deep and possibly regrettable interest in complicated people has led my stories into some interesting psychological byways.  Alcoholism and drug addiction.  The dynamics of an abusive relationship, and whether it is possible to get beyond that.  (I was ahead of the curve on that one.  The Burning Point, my book that deal with domestic violence, got flamed on the internet, sometimes by people who hadn’t even read it.  Yet just a few weeks ago, I heard an author on NPR who has written a book about getting beyond domestic violence, and how leaving is not the only possible strategy.  But I digress.)

Once again, the radio has led me to a fascinating book called THE UNTHINKABLE:  Who Survives When Disaster Strikes and Why.  ( http://tinyurl.com/63p4s8 ) I heard the author, Amanda Ripley (Time magazine’s specialist in risk and homeland security), on NPR’s Diane Rehm show, and was riveted.  Sometimes when catastrophe strikes, absolutely nothing can be done.  If one’s luck runs out—like, you’re on one of the World Trade Center floors where the plane hit—that’s it.  But many disasters have both victims and survivors.  What is the difference?  Since heroes and heroines are central to our romances, naturally I wanted to know more. 

Amanda Ripley became fascinated by ths subject, and has spent years talking to survivors and disaster specialists.  One of the clearest points to emerge is that while many people fear that they’ll panic, in fact panic is very rare.

Far more common, and often disastrous, is to do nothing.  Shock and denial are the most common reactions, and critical minutes are lost while people come to terms with the fact that yes, an airplane has struck the building.  Or the boat is sinking.  The building is on fire.  A man with a gun has entered the room and is shooting people.  This kind of catastrophe is so alien to most of us that it’s not surprising that it takes time to assimilate that yes, we’re in danger and we have to act RIGHT NOW. 

After 9/11, I read that “heroes are the ones who run toward the fire, not away.”  It’s as succinct a definition of heroism as one is likely to find.  It also implies something that is key to dealing with catastrophe:  Training.  People who are best qualified to deal with disaster are those who have been taught about how to behave.  Drilled to the point where the behavior is second nature.  These are the firemen and policemen who run toward the fire and the bullets, and God bless them every one.

This is why military people and first responders are the ones who are so effective.  When the Beverly Hills Supper Club in Kentucky burned down, the most effective person in getting people out (probably saving hundreds of lives) was an 18 year old busboy from a military family. 

Rick Rescorla, the security chief for Morgan Stanley, was a decorated Vietnam vet and a tough guy who irritated company employees by insisting on regular evacuation drills.  On 9/11, 2,687 Morgan Stanley employees survived, largely due to Rescorla’s efforts over the years.  Only 13 Morgan Stanley employees died—including Rescorla and four of his highly competent security officers, who had gone back in for the handful of employees who hadn't left. (Rescorla was an amazing guy. For more about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rescorla )

In a holiday 2006 shooting in an Annapolis mall, it was highly trained Secret Service Agent Paul Buta, shopping with his family, who took on a gun wielding teenager who had already shot another kid over a gang dispute.  Buta and the shooter were both wounded, but no one died because Buta knew what to do, and had the courage to do it.

As a side note, most descriptions of the incident said that “shoppers fled in panic.”  In fact, in such circumstances, running is a pretty darned smart thing to do.  So is finding cover or dropping to the floor.  It’s not really panic—it’s a rational response to an irrational situation.  But too often in such circumstances, people freeze.  Amanda Ripley does a great job of showing how our natural instincts have long evolutionary roots—and talking about how we can develop better survival skills. 

We don’t have to be cops to benefit by the information in Ripley’s book.  As Rick Rescorla proved, the much despised fire drill can be a huge live saver.  Fire is one of the most ancient and scary of threats, and until someone has experienced fire, it’s hard to grasp how swift and overpowering it is.

Mercifully, I’ve never been caught in a fire, but I researched the subject for The Rake, where the heroine and her foster family (and her cat) are almost killed in a fire.  The Mayhem Consultant read the work in progress and said “More smoke, more smoke!”  Then he took me on the Factory Mutual tour in Rhode Island.  Factory Mutual is to fire safety what Underwriters Laboratory is to electrical safety, and the facility has a monthly tour that features such goodies as a dust explosion blowing up a shed and a warehouse fire.  The latter is particularly exciting because visitors watch from a glass control room while two huge stacks of pallets and boxes are ignited.  One stack is sprinklered, one is not.  Heat radiates through the protective glass.

Not only was it blindingly clear that sprinklers make a huge difference.  I also saw the masses of confusing, overpowering smoke produced by a fire.  When I returned to my manuscript, I added more smoke.  (It's very good to hang out with a Mayhem Consultant who is by profession a health and safety engineer.  He always knows where the emergency exits are. <g>)

It’s no accident that so many romance heroes (and heroines) are soldiers, police, and firemen.  It isn’t that such people are unafraid.  Often they’re terrified, but they know what to do to survive and save others.  These are the people who act effectively when disaster strikes.  And for that reason, they make appealing and admirable characters.

Toward the end of The Unthinkable, Amanda Ripley discusses the elements that go into heroism.  I’ll leave you to read her book or her website ( http://www.amandaripley.com/ ) if you want to know more.  But she does say that most people we call heroes are young, single males with a lot of empathy and a sense of community responsible.  And one of the benefits of being a hero is that—well, heroes get the girls.  And as romance readers, we know why. <G> 

Mary Jo

Blond Attrition

Edith here!

Okay, Gentle Readers - a test.

What do the following actors and musicians, here and gone, have in common??

Brad Pitt
Orlando Bloom
Viggo Mortenson
Van Johnson
Laurence Olivier

Owen Wilson
Robert Redford
Richard Widmark
Heath Ledger
Robert Mitchum
Burt Lancaster
Kirk Douglas
Jon Voigt
James Cagney
Roger Moore
Daniel Craig
Jude Law
Peter O'Toole
William Holden
Woody Harrelson
Sting
Alan Jackson
Rod Stewart

Ready?
They all are - or at least, were for a movie or album or two: Blond!

And what's wrong with that?
I love the look of blond men.
My father was blond before he lost his hair. My dh had silvery wings at his temples when I met him, and turned entirely silver haired soon after (and no, it wasn't because he married me, as he claimed). My new boy baby grandchildren are respectively, blonde and red.

And yet whenever I write a blond, dark gold, or silver haired hero - he turns up dark haired on the bookcover.
And whenever I ask why (this has been at different publishers) I am told that the art department doesn't like blond men. And that the Sales Department says they don't sell a book!

They didn't sell books about famously hot and fair haired literary heroes?

The fantastic albino, Prince Elric, and his series, by Michael Moorcock
The immortal beloved Francis Lymond of the Lymond Chronicles, by Dorothey Dunnett.

Huh?

Fabio didn't sell books?
That gorgeous trio of pig-farmer cover models didn't sell books?

Well, yes, that was then and this is now.

But I'm tired of writing emails assuring readers that it wasn't my fault.
And I wonder if I should give up blond heroes?
I fought like a tiger but had blond heroes on five of my bookcovers! And a redhead (boy, was that a fight)! on another.

But these days? No.
They say that naturally blond people will become extinct in a few hundred years. They are already in the minority in America, and fading fast.

Is it that blond is considered feminine? The list of blonde heroines is too long to put here. Not to mention the many movie actresses and pop singers. In fact, a dark haired female beauty is in trouble these days. (Interesting fact: Brunettes were all the rage in Regency England! I guess they thought the classic fair English Beauty was too commonplace?)

And now, a unique contest here for you:

Tell me please, your opinion.
What hair color do you prefer in a hero? Does it matter?

And most importantly, does a blond man on the cover of a romance make you reach for another book? If so, why? Or why not?

And since I'm speaking of the here and gone, the winner will receive any one book from my backlist (if I still have it, so it would be a choice of two, please).

And my eternal thanks.

Ready to go for it? Then, tell me do. Blondes may have more fun, but what is it about blond heroes that you may shun?

Perfection

Pat here:

There has been some recent on-line discussion about writers who write too fast or too slow and the lack of quality or lack of name recognition as a result. I believe the discussion developed from an article in the San Diego Union Tribune about literary and mainstream writers, so I’ve pretty much ignored the discussion. If mainstream writers make enough money not to starve by producing less, more power to them.

My interest is genre fiction, and since I know Nora Roberts can turn out quality books at a rate far faster than anything I can achieve, and if Laura Kinsale wrote only one book every five years, people would still know her name, the point is moot as far as I’m concerned.

But as I sit here plodding through my revisions, I can see how my writing process works and how it affects my speed (or lack thereof), and my thoughts do raise a few questions.

First, my process is to write with the speed of light once I have all my research and plotting and outline in place.  Snort. I just dismissed six months of work right there.  But not everyone does as much research and plotting as I do, and since I tend to do research in hours when I’m not writing, let’s just throw away those six months and get back to the physical act of putting story on paper.  I am capable of an average of 2500 words a day before my head explodes or I don’t know what comes next.  At that rate, theoretically, I could write a 100,000 word book in forty days, or two months since I take weekends off. 

Man, if I could churn out six books a year, I’d be living good.  Or maybe not, since chances are pretty high that no one in their right mind would pay much money for the drafts I write in two months. They’re strong stories with nice characters, so I might be able to sell them to a publisher who is willing to buy my name and isn’t interested in quality, but that kind of publisher would pay peanuts on the dollar compared to what I’m currently paid. I’d have to hope that readers would faithfully go out and track down those titles so I’d make money on royalties, which means I’d have to do tons of promotion. Ugh.  Promotion would take time from my writing schedule. Besides, after reading one of those rough drafts, would my readers ever read me again?

Since I seriously don’t like promotion and would rather have a supportive publisher who pays me good money up front, I don’t send out that first draft.  Which, by the way, is never really a first draft.  Even though I can write 2500 words a day doesn’t mean I actually write new ones.  The process is far more complicated than sitting at a keyboard typing words on a page.  I spend a great deal of time going back over words already written, editing, revising, picking up dropped story threads, remembering character nuances, throwing out chapters and writing new ones to tighten the story before I can move ahead.  On days when I’m particularly mired down, I’m lucky to write 500 new words.  And when I’m done, that original draft has probably taken six months and has already been heavily edited and revised. 

And then I start the real editing and revising, which takes another three months or more. And then I send it to my editor who turns my priceless manuscript into bleeding red ink, and I spend another half a century (or so it seems) refining characters and story and playing up strengths and deleting the lovely byways and side paths I meander down, before I have a real book.

I suspect it’s somewhere along the revising and editing line that wheat begins to separate from the chaff.  Some writers are far better than I at laying out the story in perfect condition without all the extra work.  These are the people who can write several books a year and keep their quality high. I am in awe of them, and there ain’t no way on this green earth that I’ll say high production reduces their quality.

Other writers fall in different places along this production line.  Some are new and haven’t learned as much as I have about tightening and revising. They innocently send out their books with all the errors I spend six months erasing.  If their stories are strong and their characters are unique, their publisher—and their readers—may not care about the errors in logic or history, or that the book could be improved by heightening the sexual awareness and deleting some extraneous characters and so forth.  I’ve read bestsellers that I wouldn’t have sent out the way they’re written, but only the most critical readers seem to care. A writer who can pull this off and write three or four books a year can build name recognition rapidly and start earning nice money as their readership increases. Does this make them bad writers? Are they diluting the quality of the genre market? A lot of readers don’t think so. And if these fast writers develop a name for themselves, they can start making enough money to slow down and learn the rest of the process, or so the theory goes.

So can we blame authors or publishers who send out less-than-perfect books written in three, six, or nine months for “reducing the quality” of books when publishers and readers eagerly await them?  How many authors who spend one to five years polishing books to perfection will you remember when their next book finally appears?  And let me throw this one at you—since authors are paid basically on number of books sold times a percentage of cover price—would you pay more for a book based on quality?  Or buy more cheap books, regardless of quality?  (rather like having four Kias opposed to one Lexus--the picture is of a Lexus concept car, which seemed appropriately fitting for writers!) 

Oh, to be entitled

From Loretta

I've spent a delightful week at Candice Hern's discussion board, talking with the Bluestockings about Your Scandalous Ways & my heroes & heroines, & sharing my addiction to crumbly old books.  It made a nice finish to long workdays of trying to beat the WIP into submission.

However, since the battle involved some forays into crumbly old books and buying a couple, that was fun, too.

What isn’t fun is coming up very soon, I think:  Titling the WIP.

Oh, sure, I have a working title: Gag Me With a Spoon.  This is my reaction to most of the titles I come up with.

I have a fallback title but I’m not in love with it.

Strangely enough, the majority of my books carry the titles I originally gave them.  Along with most of the traditional Regencies, the first three Carsington books have my original titles.  But Not Quite a Lady, like other of my books, involved considerable discussion with publishing professionals.  Likewise Your Scandalous Ways, which started out as Not Quite a Hero.

The Lion’s Daughter started out as The Black Queen.
Captives of the Night started out as The Golden Prince.

Making titles isn’t easy.  Sometimes you nail it the first time.  Other times you end up with a title you don’t love but accept as the best you can do at the time.

We can’t just stick any title we want on a book.  There are titles that might sound “too contemporary” or “too romantic suspense” or “too mystery” or “too historical fiction” or too Monty Python.

Then there are good words and bad words, and these change over time as well as from publisher to publisher.

Many of you can easily list the current popular title words:  Scandal, Mistress, Secret...etc.  Listing them is one of those entertaining book games, like Make Fun of the Cover.

Some publishers' titles are distinctive, even to me, a writer stupendously oblivious to publishing trends.  At Harlequin, for instance, I noticed the interesting He/She titles:  Virgin Slave, Barbarian King; Scandalous Lord, Rebellious Miss; Notorious Rake, Innocent Lady.

Thing is, I suspect that Innocent Slut, Lazy Duke is not going to go over really well with my publisher.   

Sometimes authors are inspired.  The perfect title comes as a bolt from the blue.  Sometimes...not.

And sometimes readers (including me) think they can do better.  Or at least funnier.

What about you?  After seeing what you lot can do with photo captions, I’ve wanted to set you a titling challenge:  Pick a book or two or five and rename it/them.

To get you started, here are a few that came quickly to mind:

Gone With the Wind
Sense and Sensibility
Moby Dick
Frankenstein
Great Expectations

But feel free to choose your own.  Some of you may have books you’ve been longing to rename.  Now’s your chance.  Serious or funny--it’s up to you.  A good chunk of the U.S. is enduring beastly hot, muggy weather at the moment.  We could use a laugh.

The winner will be chosen based on my whim.  Said winner gets an autographed copy of a Loretta Chase book of his/her choice.

But wait, there’s more!
Anyone who wants to think up a title for my new book, here’s your opportunity.  I’ll provide no further details, so let your imagination run free.  If I actually end up stealing--I mean using it, you’ll win a special bonus prize...which I'll tell you about as soon as I figure out what it is.

We Have a Winner!

Sherrie here, announcing yet another book winner!

LuluB, you have won an autographed copy of Susan Holloway Scott's The King's Favorite.  Are you ever in for a treat!  Please send your mailing address to Sherrie so that we can get that book in the mail to you.

By the way, if you've checked out our Announcements sidebar on the right, you'll see that Susan S. will be a guest over at the History Hoydens on July 24 and 25, where she'll be talking about The King's Favorite and Nell Gwyn.  Please feel free to drop by and give her a wave.

In fact, if you'll check out the Announcements sidebar, you'll see that several of the Wenches will be busy in this month.

Some of the naughty bits

Hello campers! *G*

So says Billy, reading for sun and fun reading. :)

Well, it is summer. And the living is easy? Not for those with kids out of school, but never mind, I'm here to entertain you with the naughty bits.

(How is your summer going? Doing anything interesting?)

A book came into my hands called Napoleon's Privates: 2500 Years of History Unzipped. It's by Tony Perrottet. I assume we're supposed to sound that last T, but it's not clear. The book's website is here.

Anyway, it's a zippy read, not to say racy, and has some details that I didn't know. Why does that surprise me? Somehow, when researching romance, we stumble over the naughty bits a lot.

Not literally, she says, thinking of Napoleon's particularly private bit, which was apparently cut off during his autopsy and could be, well, anywhere.

Even the introduction intrigued when talking about the things stored in the Secret Cabinets of great libraries and museums. The thing most people weren't supposed to see. It mentions erotic devices found in medieval abbeys. I don't know of any. Tell me more! (Anyone here know?) Also "wicked relics from Georgian S&M clubs."

I'm sure there were lots, but he could have been more specific. Were there some peculiar (I use the word with care) to that period? Enquiring writers of Georgian romance need to know!

Mind you, I haven't finished the book yet. It's been a busy time around here what with moving, settling, taking a trip to the Okanagan to speak to school students, who were wonderful. The picture is, believe it or not, of snow we encountered en route to Penticton, in July. It was hot in Vancouver and hot in Penticton. It hit 38 C the day we left. But in the mountain pass it was Christmas. There wasn't a safe place to stop, so I had to try to catch it through the windows. Trust me, the evergreens were prettily dusted white.

I'm also and trying to get to the end of the first draft of The Secret Wedding before RWA in San Francisco, (cover on the left, but not out till next April.) and the other RWA in Melbourne, Australia. Not to mention Ottawa in late September. So I've only been dipping into Napoleon's Privates.

 

Er.... I didn't quite mean that!!!!!!!!!!!

I've already found things I didn't know. Castrati, apparently, only had a vasectomy. Done well before puberty this stopped development entirely. Done a bit too late it resulted in a man with all the equipment working, but no sperm. No wonder they were so very, very popular with the ladies!

And though I knew about the impotence trials in France in the 16th and 17th centuries (they'd be a real hit on Court TV, wouldn't they?) I didn't know there was an appeal system, where the couple had to try to have sex, closely observed by a variety of witnesses. As most of the people bringing these cases in the first place were high born wives trying to get out of a marriage, this must have been a particularly "interesting" situation to end up in. Talk about conflict!

But as commentators of the time pointed out, most men would have some difficulty in that situation. But not your average romance hero, no way.

With popular history I always take the information with caution, but what I've read sounds okay to me. Anyone spot a problem? With that proviso I heartily recommend this book for a fast, easy style and some fascinating tidbits of information.

Jo. signing off with a bit of BC scenery. :)

Cover Girl Nell Gwyn

by Susan Holloway Scott

Once upon a time, before every last second of every other person’s life was documented by way of a digital camera or cell-phone (at least every other person beneath a Certain Age), images were special.  Before photography and daguerreotypes became widespread in the early 19th century, the overwhelming majority of people lived their entire lives without any sort of visual documentation.  No photo-smiles, retouching, good sides or bad.  One’s image was based entirely on the here and now, or memory.

Portraits belonged to the rich, the famous, and the infamous.  Portraits were expensive, and the formal ones could take months, even years, to complete.  Portraits celebrated beauty, rank, wealth, achievement, nobility, or notoriety, and did so for all posterity.  Portraits could be viewed and venerated as stand-ins for the actual person, whether the king in a distant colonial outpost or a deceased dowager duchess respectfully added to the other ancestors in the family gallery.

Portraits also grace the covers of my historical novels.  I’ve been phenomenally fortunate in my covers, which have each featured an actual portrait of my heroine.  In the past, I’ve blogged about the portraits on the covers of Duchess and Royal Harlot, so it seems only fair that I write as well about the portrait of Nell Gwyn on the cover of my current novel, The King’s Favorite.

Those two earlier heroines –– Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, and Barbara, Duchess of Cleveland –– were both seventeenth century Ladies with a capital L, and as such they had their choice of the very best and most fashionable artists.  They were painted grandly, lushly, extravagantly, with the trappings of their titles and wealth around them. (That's Sarah with her family to the right, and even the younger son is looking flawlessly aristocratic.)

Nell Gwyn was different.  Nell was Common.  True, she was a celebrity in an era that was just beginning to realize the concept, an immensely popular actress before she became a royal mistress.  With her curly auburn hair, she wasn’t considered classically beautiful so much as charmingly pretty (what we’d now call “cute”), and her diminutive size (best modern guesses peg her at about 4’10”) made her an unlikely model for a goddess.  She was gleefully unapologetic of her humble beginnings, and only affected grand airs to twit her betters.

But like many people who rise from poverty, Nell was acutely aware of the symbols of success.  Although she could scarcely write her name, she made sure that all the silverware (and even many of the window panes) in her townhouse carried her monogram.  Nell understood the importance of portraits.  She wanted her beauty and success to be honored and preserved for future generations, but more importantly she wanted the notoriously unfaithful Charles to remember her now.

Nell sat for her portrait numerous times during her short life.  She didn’t always have the most skilled painters (see the awkward effort to the right by Simon Verelst), and because of her background, she was often shown with one or both breasts bared.  Her tiny stature makes her near-nude pose as Venus for Sir Peter Lely seem a little odd to modern eyes (and that's not to mention that weird vertical-futon-thingee she's lounging against), but Charles loved the picture so well that Nell had a copy of it painted for him to hang in his private quarters in the palace.  The artists loved painting her as well; because of her great popularity, they could count on selling prints engraved after the original portrait.

The portrait of Nell by Sir Peter Lely on the cover of The King’s Favorite was painted and copied several times, too, and it’s unlikely that this version was the original.   My cover is even further removed.  For design purposes, my publisher asked for permission from the owners to reverse the painting, and to change the color of the gown from yellow to a more eye-catching red. 

There’s another reason for the color change, too, the kind of weird coincidence that delights art historians.  If you look back at the cover of Royal Harlot, you’ll see that Barbara is wearing the same yellow gown/blue cloak combination.  And I mean the SAME gown and cloak.  Because 17th century artists kept “costumes” (long swaths of rich fabric that could be pinned and clasped into a variety of vaguely classical styles) for posing in their studios, it’s very likely that both women are wearing the exact same length of yellow cloth pulled from Sir Peter’s wardrobe –– and I also imagine that Nell might have done so intentionally to irritate Barbara.

But in this painting meant as a gift for Charles, only Nell would have chosen to be painted in such a rural setting.  She was Charles’s country mistress, his favorite companion on escapes from the London Court to Windsor Castle.  She taught him to fish, and he tried to teach her to ride, and together they swam in the river and strolled through the fields and forests, and it’s likely she wished to remind the king of these balmy, happy days in her company. Her throat and ears bare of jewels and her hair carelessly tousled,  she drapes a wreath of wildflowers around the neck of an adoring lamb who may (or may not) represent a besotted, tamed Charles himself. 

What did Charles think?  Ahh, for that you’ll just have to read The King’s Favorite, and find out for yourself.

If you were sitting for your portrait, how would you wish to be portrayed: as a Greek goddess, a Regency lady, or a movie star at Cannes, a prowling tigress, a star-spangled alien, or something else altogether? Or do you have another question or comment about Nell herself? I’ll give away a signed copy of The King’s Favorite on Sunday night to a reader who posts before then. 

Gifted & Talented Program for Heroes & Heroines

Recently I had an interesting conversation with Wench Pat Rice regarding writing about characters with talents and special abilities. Like most the other Wenches, Pat and I have written our share of heroes and heroines with gifts and talents – some of them remarkable, extraordinary or downright strange.

As a mom, I've had sons in various Gifted and Talented Programs, which has been mostly a joy and a source of pride, and sometimes plain exhausting. As an author, it's not dissimilar, minus the driving hours and the homework supervising. I love learning about my character's gifts and abilities; I admire and respect them, and of course I think they're the best ever... and I want those gifts to enrich the story for the reader, too.

For example, over the course of twenty books, I’ve written about heroes with musical and artistic talents (a fiddle player, a swordmaker); physical prowess (warriors, archers, swordsmen, forest outlaws); training and aptitude for healing or even mysterious healing powers; and psychic abilities (the ability to see the Fey, for instance). My heroines have been healers (both trained and natural) and psychics able to see the future or into the Otherworld; musicians, such as singers and a harpist; artists, including a stonecarver; and physically gifted heroines, such as a master archer as well as a swordswoman.

What is the appeal of a fictional character—whether hero, heroine, main character or villain—who possesses abilities above and beyond the norm (or slightly off center, if we’re being directional about it)? Often there’s something compelling about those who have certain gifts, abilities or qualities; sometimes it is the gift or ability itself that fascinates. Some of my stories and their main characters were inspired as I researched a gift or vocation—such as Catriona, the Victorian folksong collector and singer in my 2003 novel, Kissing the Countess; a medieval archer so adept that he could catch arrows in flight, paired with a heroine whose skill at archery was a match for his own, in The Swan Maiden; or James Lindsay, a Scottish forest outlaw with an uncanny ability to train hawks, and Lady Isobel, who can foresee the future, in Laird of the Wind.

Sometimes I’ve been so fascinated by the idea of the burden, the blessing and the price of an extraordinary gift that I’ve begun a story from that point. That was the case with Lady Miracle—where Lady Michaelmas’s gift of spontaneous healing touch is something she must hide, though it compels her to seek training as a physician in the fourteenth century; or To Wed A Highland Bride (Avon, 2007), where Elspeth can read others’ thoughts and knows the truth about others, especially James MacCarran, who doesn’t know quite what to make of it all.

Pat Rice has explored similar themes and issues in her novels. “I’ve never really tried to analyze the appeal,” she says. “It’s just something I’ve drifted toward naturally, as a more visible aspect of the character’s personality, I suppose. In MYSTIC RIDER, my heroine arouses emotion through her voice and her music. Skillful musicians can accomplish that without paranormal gifts, so Chantal’s abilities take music one step further, just enough to cause the hero grave problems. Possibly adding the extra element simply raises the stakes and the conflicts, which always makes a story more exciting.”

I know what Pat means here, and I’ve done the same thing. A story with a truly gifted, talented or extraordinarily able character naturally lends itself to situations out of the norm. Action and conflicts are a notch or two above ordinary; in historical romance, where events are often well beyond the realm of what might be considered normal, that’s useful for an author, and hopefully interesting for a reader. A character might be a gifted singer, but in fiction, that’s not always too exciting—music and art are not easy modes to convey in writing. Personally I don’t want to be told that a character is a brilliant musician, artist, or whatever. That’s a definite “show-me.” But if that gift raises the stakes, motivates story or characters and adds conflict and challenge, the label of brilliant or extraordinary is easier to accept. A character like Chantal in MYSTIC RIDER, whose astonishing musical ability ratchets things up in the story, adds a fascinating dimension.

Years ago, when I was writing The Angel Knight, I was well into the first draft when I realized that the heroine was…a total bore. There was plenty of plot—a medieval Scotswoman held in an iron cage by the English, dying of exposure; the hero frees her and then chivalrously marries her; but to his surprise, she recovers (he has that healing-touch thing goin’ on); he is stuck with a wife, a ruined castle, and a life he never planned. But I freely admit that the heroine was an utter bore in that first draft. What she desperately needed was a hobby. But what did medieval ladies do?? Needlework? No thanks....

Impulsively I gave her a Celtic harp, and (after much research!) she became a gifted harper. That changed the nature of the character and the story so much that I learned the value of giving heroes and heroines something to DO -- regardless of how exciting or fast-paced the story, believable characters, like all of us, need something that holds worth and meaning for them alone. In a story, that gift or ability can make all the difference when it dovetails with and enhances plot.

As writers, why do we choose certain gifts for some characters? Is it because it fits with the planned development of plot or character, or does it come from the author’s interest in exploring the gift itself? Mary Jo Putney says her answer to this is, quite simply, YES to all of the above, and the evidence is clear in A DISTANT MAGIC (now in paperback), and in so very many of her books.

Pat Rice gifts the heroes and heroines of her amazing Mystic Isle series with some extraordinary paranormal abilities, suited to the mystical world they live in part of the time. “After twenty-five years and forty-five books, I’ve covered most of the known territory that interests me and that the market allows, and the paranormal was a huge area relatively untouched during that time. I have never done a hero who can foresee the future like Ian from MYSTIC RIDER, for example. It adds a nice alpha quality to him if he “sees” danger and still walks into it--and I got to build plot and character around a man who willingly approaches danger."

Sometimes a writer chooses a gift or special ability for a character based on legends and myths that suit the time and setting of the story. I did that in The Sword Maiden, for example, when the heroine, Eva, is compelled to fulfill a clan prophecy in medieval Scotland; I put a sword in the girl’s hand, as she was obliged to defend her people. The research needed to make her smart and skilled with the blade was fascinating for me, and included some swordplay lessons. In that case, the character’s gift began with the model of a legend.

That’s not often the case for Pat, who says that she while she plays on the myths of a beautiful legendary city that disappears, in MYSTIC GUARDIAN, she took the Breton legend of sea princess a little further with her mermaid heroine, along with the archetypal elements of a quest for a chalice. “But it’s not as if I set out to use those myths. They just fell into place as I plotted,” she says.

I find that a lot of what goes on in a story just falls into place, as Pat says, and that’s fodder for other blogs… and in the case of the Gifted and Talented hero and heroine, that ability has to fit in the story, and not simply stand alone. If it enriches the character and the story, it’s worth it not only for the author but the reader as well.

Currently I’m still exploring the G&T Program for Heroes and Heroines--this time with a Scottish Regency heroine, Fiona, who must see a fairy with her own eyes in order to inherit her grandmother’s estate in my next Sarah Gabriel romance, THE HIGHLAND GROOM (Avon, January 2009). Dougal MacGregor, a Highland smuggler who makes whisky according to an ancient fairy recipe, knows that if Fiona has the gift of looking into the Otherworld, that only means more trouble for him.

After a gap of several years, I’m once again researching harps for my work-in-progress about Queen Margaret of Scotland, whose household includes a female bard. This time, to make certain the details of the bard's hobby are just right, I’ve started taking lessons in Celtic harp!   

What talents and abilities do you like to see in heroes and heroines? Does it appeal to you more, or less, if the gift is paranormal or "normal"?  And have you read novels in which the character's special ability made the story truly extraordinary for you?

~Susan Sarah, on a hot, humid, rainy day in Maryland

We Have a Winner!

Sherrie here, with an announcement of another winner.  Those Wenches sure do like to give away books!

Our winner this time is Becky! Your name was chosen at random from the commenters to Pat's "What if--I'm a Rebel?" blog post.

Please contact me (Sherrie) with your mailing address so that we can send you your copy of Pat's Mystic Rider. Congratulations, Becky!

Let's have a series discussion

by Mary Jo

Once upon a time, most novels were stand alone stories.  Authors would move from one setting to another, maybe even a different century, and create new characters each time out the gate.   Remember all those lovely Mary Stewart romantic suspense novels?  Even the ones set in the Greek Isles didn’t connect.  (The Merlin books were a series, but not contempoary romantic suspense.)

These days, in case you haven’t noticed, series have taken over the world of popular fiction.  Mystery is a genre with a long history of series, though even so, some of those Golden Age mystery writers varied among a stable of regulars.  Agatha Christie comes to mind with Hercule Poirot (he of the tiresome little gray cells and egg shaped head—factoids I remember decades after reading any of the books), Miss Marple, and the couple Tommy and Tuppence.  She did stand alones, too.

For mysteries, where often the puzzle was paramount, bringing in an established sleuth saved times.  No need to develop the character since the character was already developed as much as he was going to be.  (See “egg shaped head,” above.  Even Christie came to see Poirot as “an ego-centric creep:” <g>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie )

In historical romance, early stars like Johanna Lindsey might leap from a Western to a medieval to a pirate story to Vikings.  Many other authors did the same.       

So when did it all change?  And why?

The romance genre may have something to do with the change.  More than any other genre, romance is focused on characters and relationships.  This is true across all romantic subgenres.

But maybe even more true in Regency romance.  The Regency genre we know and love is something of a shared world fantasy, to a large extent invented by Georgette Heyer.  The setting is generally England in a narrow span of years.  (The Prince Regent was in charge from 1811 until his father’s death in 1820, though the fictive Regency world is longer.)

Many stories were set all or in part in London, and certain historical characters like Prinny and Beau Brummell and the patronesses of Almack’s turned up in many stories.  Heck, when I wrote my first book, The Diabolical Baron, I pretty much thought Almack’s was compulsory. <g>  So the Regency was a fertile ground for writing connected stories.

When I looked at the first books of those Wenches who started in traditional Regency, we all connected characters from our first books.  Jo and I in particular rolled into long and increasingly complex series.  Jo’s Rogues series started in the mid-80s, and has only recently been concluded.  And it turns out the Rogues have friends.  <G>

I am regularly complimented on my Rogues series.  On Jo’s behalf, I always accept the plaudits graciously.  <G>  (Unlike Jo, I do not use genealogical software to keep track of my characters’ families and relationships.  Perhaps I should.)

A lot of readers really enjoyed connected books.  Women like reading for community.  It’s great fun to revisit characters we love and see how they’re doing.  Ditto to see secondary characters move to center stage and develop their own strengths and idiosyncrasies as protagonists.  It’s all good—but why did series become practically compulsory???

In a word: Branding.  This has become a hot concept in publishing, as well as just about everywhere else in the entertainment and commercial worlds.  Once upon a  time, Tide detergent was Tide detergent.  A detergent with bleach would be launched with a new name, new colors, new advertising, etc.  But a lot of new product launches failed and the products were discontinued, at significant costs to the producer.

I’m just guessing here, but I think some bright marketing laddie one day said, “Tide is an established brand with a lot of satisfied customers.  Instead of calling our new product Zowie Detergent with Bleach, let’s call it Tide with Bleach and take advantage of an established brand name!”

“And so branding was born.  Note that this is an invented example: I have no idea of exactly how branding started. But it wouldn’t be surprising if Proctor and Gamble were leaders in this area.  (Okay, I just went to Wikipedia.  P&G was founded in 1837 by a candle maker and a soap maker, and they are indeed pioneers of brand management.)

In an increasing complex marketplace FULL of shrieking commercial voices, branding became a way to survive and flourish.  Pop culture began doing the same thing.  Star Wars parts IV, V, and VI, later followed by Star Wars I, II, III.  People would talk about the new Die Hard or Indiana Jones movie. Franchises/branding moved in and became the 600 lb. gorilla.  People liked returning to characters and settings they enjoyed before.         

The same is true of books, so now publishing is knee deep in series, too.  Publishing is a hard business, and anything that will give a book an edge is valuable.

As is true of just about everything, there are pluses and minuses.  Revisiting a world we love is an obvious plus.

But the minuses are also there.  In romance, the custom is to have each hook focus on the courtship of a single couple.  Their story is developed and resolved in that volume, so there’s a satisfying ending.  A variation on this is the trilogy where there is an overarching plot issue in the background that isn’t resolved until the end of the final book, but each of the books focuses on a different couple. 

Though my books are almost always connected, the individual stories are designed to stand on their own.  My longest series, The Fallen Angels, is what I fondly call my seven book trilogy.  I quit because it seemed as if it would get too unwieldy.  This is a danger of very long series—so many characters that it’s impossible to revisit them all without old home week taking over the story.  And a reader who hasn't read the earlier books is apt to be irritated by all the chumminess, like going to a party where everyone else knows each other but you're a stranger.  My rule of thumb is never to pull in an earlier character unless he or she fills a legitimate story function.  The reader doesn't have to have read that character's own romance.

Indefinite series, if they’re successful, can go on and on and ON, leaving the reader with the question of where to start.  Early books might be out of print and hard to obtain.  And sometimes, when I’ve decided to start a series at the beginning, I’ve found the writing wasn’t strong enough to hold my attention though it might be later. 

With mystery series, which now have much stronger characterization than in the so-called Golden Age of detective fiction, there’s the challenge of having your characters grow without growing so much that readers aren’t interested any more.  Sue Grafton has done a good job with her Kinsey Milhone, as has Carola Dunn with her Daisy Dalrymple series, set in post-WWI England.

My pet peeve is when a sleuth’s love interest is killed off after the reader has bonded with the character.  As a writer, I can understand the desire to stir things up, have the protagonist experience grief and growth, and allow the introduction of new potential love interests.  But as a reader, I HATE it.  Heck, I stopped reading one writer when he murdered a cat very nastily just to prove how awful the bad guys were.  This is the origin of the mystery axiom “Don’t kill the cat!”  (The heroine had a dog, but nooooo, it was the sweet cat that was massacred.  I don’t think that author is published anymore, and serves him right.)

But I digress. <G>

Some of the dark fantasy series that are selling very well have such complicated world building that if you don’t start at the beginning, you’ll never be able to figure out what’s going on.  Even if you’ve read the earlier books, if any amount of time goes by between books, you might need to reread to remember what’s what. 

And the really big danger with a series: having a series you love get canceled with no real resolution.  If the author doesn’t know the ax is about to fall, she can’t wind things up.  I’m told of one fantasy series that literally ended with hero and heroine on a cliff, in danger.  What a terrible thing to have happen to series, author, and readers! 

When Robert Jordan, author of the immensely popular Wheel of Time fantasy series, died before completing the twelfth and final volume, there was much agitas among his readers.  I'd heard that he once said that if he died before finishing, too bad, but he changed his mind after being diagnosed with a terminal blood disease.  The final story was partially completed and fully outlined, and is being completed by another writer.  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jordan )  I admire his commitment to his readers.

Have you had series you loved canceled without a real resolution?  What do you think of series in general?  Love ‘em, hate ‘em, or “it depends?” 

I’ll be interested to know your opinions!

Mary Jo, who is in a hurry and probably knee deep in typos

Eyeing the Beholder

Edith here!

I recently ran a contest on my website, asking readers: “If I had the good fortune to have my latest book, "HIS DARK AND DANGEROUS WAYS,” made into a movie,who would you cast as the hero?”

The winner was to be chosen at random and I said so upfront so no one had to be inspired in their choices. Nonetheless, I was staggered at some of them.

Many were actors who had done Historical drama on TV or in the flix. I expected Colin Firth and Hugh Jackman, of course. But some readers also named actors I’d never heard of; had heard of but had never seen, and some that I had seen and vowed I never would again. And this after all the work I do on defining my characters, describing them down to their big toes and shading in all other salient parts. I know there’s no accounting for taste. But still: an elegant Regency era English nobleman played by:

“The Rock”?

Clint Eastwood?

Jack Black????

And lots of surprising others. Why did so many see my hero so differently?

We all know people who are paired in real life with partners we can’t ‘see.’
Loved him, hated her. Loved her – ohmygosh! Why did she marry him?
Sexual attraction and the business of picking a mate has little to do with what the eye sees. It’s chemistry. I can tell a reader what a fella looks like, acts like, even smells like, but I don’t know what her biochemistry is like and what she’ll react to.
Haven’t we all met people who weren’t the bittiest bit attractive, and yet the more we talked with them, the more attracted we became?

It’s chemicals. Pherenomes. The sound of a voice, the sense of a touch. That ineffable something. A million years ago when I was young and single, I met a seemingly perfect man. But up close, he always smelled like shoe polish! Goodbye, man of my dreams.

Money always smells great. In fact, it is the only aphrodesiac I know of that actually works for a huge number of people, male and female.
But our True Romantic Hero smells, tastes, sounds and looks like the man of our dreams.
How can we put that into a book? Writers try. But there's no one dream for everyone. Physical attracton is due to individual sensory perceptions. Love for a movie or TV star or a character in a book is a love of the mind. Imagination fills in the gaps.
Actual attraction for a living breathing human is for living, breathing humans.
All I can do as a writer is to get a character’s mind and soul so well that I feel I know him and hope a reader will too. And if she wants to see him as I never did, that's fine. As long as she loves him too.

Dream on then, dear readers. I don’t fault any of your choices. I’ll do my best to make you see my hero as I do, but one woman’s hero is not another’s.
There is no’ one size fits all’ in Heroland.
Except for Johnny Depp, of course. And Viggo Mortensen. And Alan Rickman and Hugh Laurie and…..Ahem.

Have you ever met a dream man in person and found there was some teensy thing about him that turned you utterly off?
Do tell, she said, with a wicked grin.

That Old Time Religion

Pat here, having forgotten I'm supposed to post today and not Wednesday...

I’m drowning in revisions and about to go under, so I’ll grab a question from our readers to expound upon today. The question I chose is obviously a favorite of mine—religion—but we’re coming out it from a different angle today.  I hope Gretchen Fucio isn’t too disappointed that it took me six months to answer, but she’s due a Patricia Rice book of her choice.
:
“… would anyone feel comfortable blogging about the religious beliefs of the time? How likely were our heroes and heroines to attend church? What percentage of families in English society were Catholic?  Jewish? What were the restrictions on education, military service, marriage, etc. for those who were not C of E? Did such restrictions apply to other Protestant groups? “

I’ll happily take on any topic, be it touchy or not.  I won’t guarantee I’ll get it right, but I love to share my point of view. Of course, my prevailing opinion is that base human nature isn’t desperately different now than in the past, and that history never strays too far from the people who make it—which is why we’re doomed to repeat ourselves.  It’s the shallow societal factors that are most noticeably different from one era to another.

Also, bear in mind that I can’t speak of all of the 1700s or 1800s as if they’re the same.  Compare the 1960s to the 2000s and you’ll see the difficulty of comparing 1760 to 1810. While human nature may remain unchanged, laws and culture are constantly evolving. Methodism emerged as a huge factor of change during that time. 

Very much in general—the 1700s were not a time of strict religious belief in England. The Church of England had become a political arm of the government, and as such, people treated it with the same indifference as they treated Parliament.  The church was rather a thing one did because everyone else did it.  In general. As I said, people are people and we’re all different.  The “Catholic” problem became a political problem, and the law simply banned anyone of any religion other than C of E from political office.  It would probably take two blogs to explain how a religion became politics and not a matter of faith, and I’m not up to the dialog.  As the century waned, more and more politicians attempted to change this policy, but too many were invested in it for change to come easily. By 1793, Catholics and Dissenters were allowed to vote but still could not sit in Parliament.

I did a quick Google and searched through my texts but couldn’t find any statistics on the numbers of people in each religion at this time.  The numbers of Quakers were dwindling, probably because they found the United States a more suitable alternative for their middle-class morals and lifestyles.  England was Catholic until ‘Enery the Aighth came along, so even by the 1700s, it would be hard to measure who was publicly Catholic and who was privately Catholic.  Since the overall percentage of Jews in the world was minimal compared to other religions, they would be a very small percentage of the English population as well. 

The interesting story during this period is John Wesley (that's his picture above) and his evangelical organization and all the groups that developed from his original theories. Essentially, until John Wesley recognized the poor as needing spiritual support, they had been left out of religious life. They couldn’t read the Bible or the C of E prayer book. They couldn’t afford to dress up and see and be seen on Sundays. The church treated them with pragmatism, as a burden on society that had to be fed and taught, not as humans who needed to know that God was in their lives.   

John Wesley started out as a thoroughly conservative C of E Tory, and so he taught his followers.  But what he gave them was spiritual support and self respect and means of pulling themselves out of poverty.  The C of E, unfortunately, being of political nature, lived in fear of large gatherings of the poor and downtrodden, so conflict was inevitable. Eventually, the Methodists were forced to break away.  All the different evangelical churches that formed during this time could be roughly compared to our current squabbling Southern Baptists, I suppose.  But in this case, because they began with miners and laborers, the evangelical churches did not often include the wealthy.

So if one is writing about England around 1800, it would be necessary to have your aristocrats acknowledge the vicar’s presence in society, have your respectable town folk attend church on Sunday or people wondering why, and your slum folk still working for pennies as if it’s any day of the week. Out in the hinterlands, the laborers will be gathering in the fields to listen to itinerant preachers.  In general.  Then as now, a drunken rake, no matter how aristocratic, is unlikely to sit inside a church, and a pious starving seamstress might easily take comfort in the vast beauty of the cathedral. 

But what might be interesting is to parallel how the immoral Georgians evolved into the pious Victorians over a space of a century or so.  Did the evangelicals force aristocrats to recognize their immorality? (or their mortality?) Did the gradual separation of church and state produce a different religious outlook?  Or did people just get more nervous and uptight with the political and religious conservatism of the new queen compared to the old kings?  Anyone want to take a whack at it?  Or the more learned among us, speak up!

And to justify the time I spend on here--remember, MYSTIC RIDER is on the shelves now.  The religion I spoke of above was English--in the setting for RIDER, the French Catholic church had been disbanded and only patriotic priests allowed to preach, so that's an entirely different set of circumstances!

We Have a Winner!

Sherrie, here, announcing another winner.  KIMMY L, you have won a copy of THE KING'S FAVORITE from Susan Holloway Scott!  Please contact Sherrie with your mailing address so that we can send you your autographed book.  And congratulations!

By the way, a number of winners have never claimed their books.  Do make a note to stop by here on Sundays to check to see if your name is listed as a winner.  (We do announcements on Sundays.)  Because many of the winners are not newsletter subscribers, we can't look them up on the newsletter list, either.  So signing up for the monthly Wenches newsletter increases your chances of our having a way of contacting you if you win a book.  Because we do love to give away books.

Francesca's Tattoo

From Loretta

Fourth of July.  U.S. Independence Day.  I always wonder, What if King George III and his ministers had handled things differently?  What if, over here, the pro-England side had prevailed over the dump-England side?  What would we call ourselves?  Maybe the U.S. and Canada would all be the same country.  We wouldn’t be the U.S.  Would we be Canada?

But what I wonder most is, Would Regency-era historical romances be as popular?

Since a great many of our readers are not in the U.S., I’m going to skip the Independence Day blog.  Besides, I want to talk about tattoos.

In the course of my cybertour for Your Scandalous Ways, I’ve been asked more than once about Francesca’s tattoo.  Readers emailed me about it, as well.

This was one of those topics I’d thought of addressing at some point in the story itself, but the right opportunity never appeared.  This happens a lot.  There are lots of little substories that don’t get told because it would disrupt the pacing to do so, and the topic doesn’t seem important enough for a detour...and I have only so much time to write a book as well as only so many pages.

So leaving out the story of Francesca’s tattoo was an artistic decision.  It bothered me a little at first, but the more I thought about it, the less inclined I was to try to wedge it into the story.  I figured this could be one of those “make up your own story” things.  Like, “Make up your own story about what happens to Francesca and James after the end of the book.”

Let me start out by saying that anyone who wants to imagine Francesca has one of those henna tattoos that wear off after a few weeks should feel free to go on seeing it that way.  It’s a great concept. 

Here’s what was in my mind:  Tatoos were unheard of among the upper classes in Francesca's day.  Edward VII got one when he was Prince of Wales--but that was almost half a century later.  Tattoos in Francesca’s time were not respectable, absolutely not for ladies.  They were for sailors and criminals and savages.  So one element of Francesca’s tattoo is shock value--and that’s clear in the scene at the opera.  Even James, who’s seen it all, is shocked to see it.  After all, she may be a courtesan but she’s a lady by birth.

Where did she get it?  By Francesca’s time there were professional tattoo artists in major ports, to accommodate the sailors.  I imagined that by this time there must be at least one professional tattoo artist in big, cosmopolitan cities like London and Paris.  I envisioned her getting her tattoo in Paris, as an act of defiance and a permanent symbol of her having turned her back on respectability.

I chose a serpent partly because of the Cleopatra-asp association.  Both Byron and James Cordier associate Francesca's unusual looks with an Egyptian goddess or queen.  I envisioned the kind of snakes one sees in Egyptian art and hieroglyphs.  Too, given the tools available, a simpler tattoo, say, from a hieroglyph, seemed to make the most sense.
One reader suggested a Garden of Eden connection.  That works well, too, given it’s her job to tempt men. 
Another thing I considered was the pain and the risk.  They used sewing needles and rubbed in the ink.  I have no doubt it was a great deal more painful than today’s tattoos and of course the risk of infection was much higher...in a time when there were no antibiotics.  Again, this says something about Francesca’s character, her inner toughness, her daring--and the ferocity of her anger with the world that rejected her and which she, symbolically, rejects when she gets her tattoo.

One reader asked why the tattoo doesn’t appear on the cover.  Covers are painted long before the book is finished, and they're usually based on the story outline, rather than actual chapters.  I did not mention the snake tattoo in the outline (one doesn't go into this much detail).  The covers are meant to appeal to a broad audience, and Avon has done a great job, I think, in making my recent covers very beautiful and apt.  I also suspect that, given the genre and the fact that not everyone likes tattoos, it would have been left out of the picture, even if I'd made prominent mention of it in the outline.

People do seem to feel pretty strongly about tattoos, pro and con.  What about you?  Like them?  Hate them?  Or does it depend?

The Baronial Hall

Jo here, with Charlie playing butler in what I'm calling the Baronial Hall. :) More about that later.

I found my fountains and have two going, one outside, one inside. My Woodstock chimes are hanging -- inside, but where they can catch a breeze from the sunroom door.

But I still have stuff. A lot less stuff (I've been throwing things out. What was I thinking to bring them?) and I'm finding homes for things that I have to keep. Like books. Books aren't stuff anyway.

First there are my books -- my archival copies of my books, plus my extra copies of my books. They used to be on spacious shelves in the basement. Now they're in bankers boxes against a wall in the sun room. Should I call it the solar?

This baronial hall doesn't have a basement -- the house does, but that's not the same -- but it is spacious.

Why the "baronial hall?" you ask? Because the apartment comprises some modern amenities plus the grand dining room and a semi-grand anteroom of an Edwardian mansion. Here's a picture of the dining room before the stuff moved in. The dining room is now my main living space.

It's paneled all around, but some is covered by more books -- my wall of research books. I brought the bookcases with me. They're not quite up to the oak paneling, but what's a writer to do? Of course, I trimmed down my collection quite a bit.  That's painful, but  there's a lot of material up on the web now, so I  don't need the text for occasional reference. I also had a lot of books from way-back-when which were fact checkers. Again, so easy to find on the web.

Apartment living. It's been a while, but if it has to be an apartment, this is the sort for a historical romance author, that's for sure!

In addition, life's been quite exciting since arriving here.

First there was a fire in a house across the road. (Can you tell I've acquired a new camera? LOL!)

Then, as if to enhance the old style ambiance, two young deer strolled by my dining bay window yesterday. What's a baronial hall without deer? But I promise not to try to roast any in the enormous fireplace.

It's the end of Canada Day here now, so I hope all Canadians had a wonderful one. We walked down to see the fireworks.

To all you Americans here, have a great Fourth of July.

If you're from another country, what's your national day, and how do you celebrate it?

Writing? Writing? You expect me to be writing? I'm getting back into the flow of The Secret Wedding and we've just come up with the cover, which will be lovely and much in the style of A Lady's Secret, though different. That won't be out until next April, however. Believe it or not, a year between books used to be normal. What do you think about frequent publication? I know we all prefer our favourite authors to write a book a month, but really, would you mind waiting a year for most authors to produce a new book?

I know I didn't pick a winner from last time. None of you really took up my challenge to identify one piece of clutter and, especially, get rid of it! So I'm awarding a book to Lindsay for a second hand sighting of Hugh Laurie. Pity there weren't pictures -- instruct your boyfriend in case of future luck! -- but it was worth a prize. Lindsay, e-mail me about it.

Happy celebrations, everyone.

Jo :)