Everything Old is New Again

Cara/Andrea here,
All authors are told that a key trope in writing is to do a dramatic opening scene to catch a reader’s interest, and then build the backstory that helps develop the plot. So I’m going to play around with a variation of that today (and no, the first line is not going to be ‘It was a dark and stormy night . . .” Though I confess, I’ve always rather like the idea of playing with that one.) So here we go:

A metallic click caused Marcus Fitzherbert Greeley, the seventh Earl of Killingworth to look up from his ledgers.
“Who’s there?” he called sharply.

      No answer sounded in reply, but after a moment the draperies stirred and a dark shape emerged from the midnight shadows. As the cloaked figure approached his desk, candlelight glinted off the steel of an ancient pistol.
      “Stand up,” came the curt command.
      The case clock ticked off a second or two before the earl put down his pen and rose.
      “Take off your coat.”
       He didn’t move, save for a slight twitch of his raven brows.
      “You think a mere female incapable of pulling the trigger? I assure you, I should like nothing better, if you give me the slightest provocation.” The young lady—for her speech, if not her actions, indicated that she was indeed a lady—stepped closer. “And in case you are wondering, I am accorded to be a decent shot.”

The above are the first paragraphs of Pistols at Dawn, a brand new, never-before published traditional Regency Romance written under my old pen name of Andrea Pickens, which will be hitting the cyber shelves on June 2.

Okay, now the backstory. Some of you may know that my very first book, The Defiant Governess, was for Signet, which published a special line of traditional Regency romances. I did ten stories for them before moving on to a new niche—mass market historicals—and a new nom de plume—Cara Elliott. Like many of the other Wenches, I have gotten the rights back to my early books and have self-published them as e-books.

The process of getting them edited and formatted for the digital format made me think a lot about the “trad” Regency form and how it is different from what we broadly call “historical” Regencies, especially in their highly evolved modern variations. For me, there are two key elements that distinguish the “trad.” For one, it’s a shorter length—usually 60-70,000 words rather than the 85-95,000 of mass market historicals. More importantly to my mind is the fact that it’s typically “sweet,” which means, like the works of its patron Goddesses Austen and Heyer, the stories contain no explicit sex.  

Both elements play a very fundamental role in shaping the story. With fewer words to play with, an author has to really concentrate on developing the character arc—what’s the core conflict that is keeping the hero and heroine apart, and how do they grow and change in order to resolve it? Plot is of course important, but it’s the main characters who must stay in clear focus. While many modern Regency historicals have a lot of bells and whistles—mystery plots woven in, important secondary characters who tend to have spin-off books of their own in the offing—the “trad” is at heart, a simple love story.

Sex. Now, aside from the titters the word provokes, there really is a big difference between a book that has graphic nitty-gritty and one that doesn’t. In a “trad,” where the bedroom door stays firmly shut, the powerful, provocative chemistry that ignites an irresistible attraction must be created with psychological tension rather than physical fire. It’s more subtle and suggestive . . .

And clearly, there is a a strong market for the “trad” despite what the big publishers think. My old Signet titles are selling very well, as are those of many other Regency authors. (I’ve been amazed that The Defiant Governess had garnered over 170 reviews on Amazon since I put it out in e-book form.)

As I re-read my old worked, I realized how much I enjoyed working within the tighter constraints of a “trad.” And so, when I realized that I had an old, unfinished manuscript in my desk drawer, and a way to bring it to readers through self-publishing, I sharpened my cyber pencil and got to work. I really enjoyed writing Pistols At Dawn (and I hope readers will enjoy reading it!)  In fact, it was so fun to get back to my roots that I’ve started work on a new trilogy of “trad” Regencies. So stay tuned!

So what about you? Do you have a preference between “trad” and historical Regencies? Or do you enjoy them both? And how do you feel about graphic sex scenes in a romance novel? I’ll be giving away an e-book copy of Pistols At Dawn to reader who will be chosen at random from those leaving a comment here between now and Tuesday evening.

Comments

[Janice]

my preference is for trad rather than historical. I dislike the narrow hero/heroine focus of historicals - often to the exclusion of everything but sex and banter - and I also dislike the too-modern language most have.

Despite their usually shorter length, trads have a wider canvas, more period flavor, more literate language, and a larger cast of characters -- they're just more substantial feeling to me. I would disagree that trads are necessarily sweet, with bedroom door closed; I can recall some pretty graphic sex scenes in many trads. Mary Balogh, for instance, when she was writing for Signet, had many explicit lovemaking scenes and dealt with non-sweet themes such as spousal abuse and prostitution.

In any case, I'm not reading trads because I want to avoid sex, it's because I'm looking for a good read with some substance to it.

[Sonya Heaney]

I like variety in my books – I’m not always in the mood for the same thing.

However, I think there has been such an emphasis put on sex in historical romances recently that I’m starting to… go off certain styles a bit. I don’t remember who it was who said it, but recently they reviewed a Regency and made the comment you wouldn’t go to your friend’s house for dinner and start having sex in their sitting room in 2014, so why in the world are characters doing it in 1814! I’ve started applying that as a “rule” for whether or not I’m okay with those scenes in my books!

Jane Austen is more or less the ideal for a lot of readers and writers in this genre, and she managed to create some amazing love stories that were very tame. Not that I want authors today to write the same way as Austen, but it is definitely possible to make highly romantic stories without the bedroom action.

But… variety. I like all kinds of things. :)

[Gail]

I like both types of books, depending on my mood. Sometimes it is nice to read the "trad" and then switch to a historical book. In regard to the sex issue, I sometimes skip over those passages to get back to the story. Again, it depends on my mood. In the end, the story is what I am most concerned about.

[Andrea Penrose]

Ha, so true, Sonya. Publishers have been pushing the more sex, more sex for a number of years, and I think it's getting a little overdone. There are plenty of ways to create 'sexy" books, and keep readers from getting too bored. Like you, I don't want to read the same thing over and over. I appreciate a variety of styles.

[Andrea Penrose]

Ha, so true, Sonya. Publishers have been pushing the more sex, more sex for a number of years, and I think it's getting a little overdone. There are plenty of ways to create 'sexy" books, and keep readers from getting too bored. Like you, I don't want to read the same thing over and over. I appreciate a variety of styles.

[Andrea Penrose]

Gail, that really sums it up. I think all readers like different style for different moods. For me, it's not the label that matters—what I care about areinteresting characters and and a flair for language.

[Anne Gracie]

Janice, Mary Balogh's so-called "trads" were a source of great confusion to me when I was first starting out and trying to work out the difference. Here (Australia) a "regency" was *any* book set in the regency, sexy or not. And when I was first connecting with US readers, people asked me was I trad or not.

What's the difference, I'd ask. Trad regencies are the Signets, people would say. But Mary Balogh's books were Signets...
Oh, the confusion. *g*

[Lucy]

I wish Regency really would get back to its Heyer-style roots. I've been getting more and more bored with the too-modern characters/outlooks/language and rather repetitive plotting that seems to characterize most of what I've picked up lately. Heyer's plots weren't always earthshaking, true, but she made her characters step out and move!

More, even in so-called traditional Regency (21st century style)--in my opinion, the sex/near-sex/lust is so overdone that it's become a cliche.

I remember reading Joanna Bourne's story in Mischief and Mistletoe, and thinking how refreshing it was to find two characters who could have some heat between them, still think about something besides lust--and hold an intelligent conversation, no less!

[Gail Mallin]

What I want from any romance novel is engaging characters and an involving storyline. I don't really care "label" the book carries, I just want to be drawn into an interesting world. That said, I've found it is mostly the "Trad" Regencies that provide what I am looking for. Many of the more modern style Historicals I've read lately concentrated too heavily on the sexual aspect and didn't pay enough attention to all the other things that go to make up a convincing relationship. Don't get me wrong, a touch of spice is nice but I think too much is boring and it just spoils a story.

[Anne Gracie]

Cara/Andrea, I forgot to say, I love that catchy first line of yours. I'm not much of a first liner, but I do admire it in others.

[Cathy Phillips]

I enjoy both. I do enjoy a wider fleshed out version of the characters and stories though. I don't think I have read any trads for quite a while, but I did enjoy them when I have read them.

[Pam Bustamante]

I'm sort of new to the whole romance genre. This is the first time I have had the "trad"/"regency" issue defined. Thanks so much, it helps. I like a little of both, and agree, that it is the plot and characters that matter the most. All those plucky heroines and tortured rakes finding their love story is what makes me happy. And I do love this site for helping unravel some of the mechanics of the storytelling and the work the authors put into them.

[Kylan Alexander]

I love both. However, I am so tired of the erotica taking over the romance genre. I'm talking about the new adult and explicit stuff that are all over the blogs and Facebook. I skip over most of the sex scenes in most books I read so if I have to skip over half the book, I won't read the author again. I love many sub genres of romance but I want romance not sex, characters with substance not lust. I have loved every book you have written, so keep it up!

[[email protected]]

I own about 800 trads and had enough library ones to swell my list to over 1,000 before I stopped keeping track (so I wouldn't buy duplicates, LOL). A friend and I still cycle through the ones I own, now for the second or even third time. Nowadays, I do a lot of e-reading, including the modernized historicals, but I still love my trads (and the fact that they're increasingly available via Kindle--thank you, self publishers!).

I usually enjoy/don't mind an interesting boudoir episode if it isn't the entire raison d'etre for the book's existence. However, I've given up two very well-known authors (none of you, of course) for going off the deep end on sex. ("Pounded into her" and "bucked off the bed" are too much information for my tastes.)

Mary Balogh's books were nicely balanced between story and relationship, though I wondered at the time how she explained herself to her high school students. Now, of course, she wouldn't have to!

[Barbara Monajem]

I like both, but I must say that often the trads are more romantic because of the focus on emotion rather than physical attraction. When it comes right down to it, I prefer to be gripped by the heart than by the private parts. (And as an author, I'm getting a bit bored with writing sex scenes. It's sort of like being obliged to put a car chase in every single book.)

That's an awesome opening, Cara -- looking forward to find out what comes next! :~)

[Annette N]

For me, good writing is more important than a category. I like a plot that is interesting and not cookie cutter. I want characters who are people with whom I could spend time with a smile. As for sex, it has been quite some time, but if I focus, I can remember it, and it was not sooooo bad.

Actually the first romance I ever read was by an author who had written some very erotic scenes. But, what I liked was the story she created and the characters who held my interest.

From there I have found both kinds and the common thread for me is laughter. I cannot believe that just because people lived in the Regency era they never laughed together. I think a sense of humor in the hero and heroine are the most appealing for me, no matter which category.

[Susanna Cornett]

I started with Georgette Heyer, and moved to the Signets many years ago. I still have several of them, and several of my favorites by Mary Balogh are among her trads. I started reading your books when you wrote trads, Andrea, and you went on my auto-buy list after the first one. I enjoy both trads and historicals, although as several have said I find the trads to be more historically correct in action and language. I am not a fan of a lot of the sexual gymnastics in many current historicals. I enjoy steamy when it's properly foreshadowed and fits with the story line, but I don't like the erotica and I don't appreciate its incursion into standard historicals - as much because it's silly as anything else. I've yet to read any erotica that I thought also had a good story. I avoid it now. Exotic, yes - Stephanie Laurens's Melting Ice is a good example, as is Lisa Kleypas's I Will (from Wish List). Both are short stories, but the romance is very hot and the sex unconventional in ways that move the story forward, not just set pieces tossed in almost randomly. Anyway :) obviously a soapbox. Andrea, I am delighted that you are going to be adding trads back into your writing mix, and I will be snapping them up as soon as I see them!

[Ella Quinn]

I like traditional Regency with sex. Tweeted and shared on FB.

[Ashantay Peters]

I enjoy both Regency types, but skip over the sex scenes. As others have written here earlier - too much, too often. And a virgin experiencing multiple orgasms the first time around without experiencing any discomfort? Unbelievable. Realistic characters I'd enjoy meeting again experiencing strong conflict is my measuring tool of a great read. Love your Dueling opening! Best wishes for continued success.

[Glenda]

I like them both equally. I honestly prefer when Regency novels use both the emotional/psychological attraction and the physical. I have more faith in a long lasting HEA if there is emotional attachment and attraction as well as physical. In all honesty, there have been many times that I just skipped the actual sex scene. :-)

[Cheri]

A simple kiss is powerful if I believe in the characters and their attraction/love for one another. Sex is just ho hum if I don't believe the connection. I like stories that make me believe.

[spiderand ivy]

I really don't care. If there is too much sex for the day, I skip over it. Obviously, sometimes I end up skipping a lot of the story. I like books that have a good story line, and it doesn't have to be romance. I admire authors who can put together romance, mystery, and history all in one.

[Eileen Dandashi]

I like you comments Janice.

[Eileen Dandashi]

I most definitely agree Cara. I read a lot of historical romances and find that I appreciate the ones that have more sensual tension and less direct sex involved. I also believe writers short-change themselves with their creativity in having to write so much sex into every story.

[Linda]

I'm happy either way as long as it's well written. I don't feel graphic sex is necessary when the romance is well written. Not that I'm complaining when there are sex scenes but they need to fit into the storyline.

[Linda Hays-Gibbs]

Wow! Such a great discussion, I get confused when I'm reading my favorite authors because some have become more explicit with the sex. I love the innocent sweet romance so that is what I am writing now. I think it is harder to write because it must be a better book. It needs more mystery and much better dialogue. I agree with all of you here too. I love having these discussions with some of my idols and heroes that I now try to imitate. You guys are the greatest! Love you.
Linda Hays-Gibbs

[Dee F.]

I agree with Linda. The quality of the writing defines a book I enjoy reading. One niggly problem with historicals though, is that a few writers seem to think that modern vocabulary and attitudes are okay to use interchangeably with more accurate words/behaviors suited to the time of the story.

[Cheryl Bolen]

I agree with you a hundred percent, Barbara!

[Shelley Munro]

I like both types, depending on my mood. The characters need to draw me in, rather than the way they approach a bedroom scene. If I'm not drawn to the characters then sex, or the lack of, won't make any difference. I'll shut the book and move on to the next in my pile.

[Gloria]

And what about the covers? I always hold my breath when my middle school grandchildren pick up my I Pad, wondering if they will somehow hit upon my Kindle app with all those open shirted hunks. After reading here how publishers are " encouraging" the erotica, I understand how the covers must follow suit.

As for trad or not, I like both. But it's the characters, the history and the words that make them wonderful.

[Shannon]

I grew up on the traditional romances where almost everything was behind closed doors. Then the alpha male rape scene that morphed into a love affair came along which turned me off of the historical genre. I stuck to sweets.

For about 10-15 years, my reading was totally work related. I almost never read fiction.

When I came back to reading for fun, I found a huge range of sexuality. Some of it was purple prose, some it was heartfelt encounters, and some it was ho-hum fantasy sex (multiple orgasms for virgins, etc). Now that I read a lot, I do find that lust so often substitutes for love. In those books, I tend to skim the sex scene to see if there's any character development.

The trend that really bothers me is that there is bondage and SM in historicals. I expect it in erotica but I don't want it my historicals. I suppose it is editors thinking everyone wants 50 Shade of Grey. I don't, and there's a couple of authors that have gone off my autobuy list because of it.

I've been reading a lot of steam punk recently. For some reason, probably because I'm reading really well written ones, is that the sex seems integrated into the stories.

[Andrea Penrose]

So true, Eileen. I find it more interesting to create sexual tension through thought and banter than describing the actual act. NOT that I don't like writing sexy Regencies too, but I like using subtle signal—how a face looks in candlelight—to ramp up emotions. And yes, to me it gives more of a challenge to paint a scene in words.

[Andrea Penrose]

Lucy, I know a lot of readers agree with you. Developing characters through their verbal exchanges and interior monologues allows a reader to watch them grow and change and understand themselves in the process, which to me is at the heart of a story and its relationships

[Andrea Penrose]

Thanks, Anne! From you, that is high praise indeed!

[Andrea Penrose]

Pam, so glad you enjoy our musings here!

[Andrea Penrose]

Thanks so much, Kylan. I truly appreciate that.
For me you've hit the nail on the head—as I reader I want books and characters with substance. They have to have more depth than a thin sheet of paper to interest me. And one bed scene after another is . . .well, pretty boring, IMO.

[Andrea Penrose]

Oh, LOL on your examples! And your comment!
Mary has always written richly textured books. She was one of the first Signet authors I read, and I was in awe. Still am!

[Andrea Penrose]

Oh, well said, Barbara!

[Andrea Penrose]

I'm glad you mention humor. I think it's a key ingredient to a story and makes people more human. You are so right—laughter is an integral part of our being, no matter what era.

[Andrea Penrose]

Thank you, Susanna! I'm honored!

I, too, find erotica uninteresting to read. As you say, it usually lacks a strong story line or, more importantly, any interesting motivation behind the characters. So I don't care about them as people.

[Andrea Penrose]

Thanks, Ella!

[Jenny]

I must say I like both types, the traditional and the historical, especially if it is Napoleonic Wars era or earlier. I am not really keen on Victorian or later. As far as the sex scenes, I usually skip over them. By the time you get to my age (past retirement) it has started to lose its apeal. However, I still want my favourite authors to continue writing, so if it means sex, so be it.

[Jobev]

"you wouldn’t go to your friend’s house for dinner and start having sex in their sitting room in 2014, so why in the world are characters doing it in 1814! I’ve started applying that as a “rule” for whether or not I’m okay with those scenes in my books!"

LOL, Sonya! An excellent rule.

[Andrea Penrose]

Ashantay, that's a lovely summation of what draws you to a story. And thank you so much for you best wishes!

[Andrea Penrose]

Yes, a kiss can be VERY sexy . . . so can just the yearning for a kiss. Passinate attraction can be done so many alluring ways, aside from sex.

[Andrea Penrose]

I love richly textured stories, too, that have layers of interest.

[Andrea Penrose]

Linda, I agree that explicit sex has become a crutch, replacing the need to craft a real, emotional relationship. I want to see the characters, be introspective, and work through their conflicts and come to realize why the other person is the perfect match. That takes more than mere bedroom antics.LOL

[Andrea Penrose]

Oh, well said. (And I wish publishers would design more "Jane Austen" covers. But they feel "art" doesn't sell.

[Andrea Penrose]

Shannon, thanks for the really thoughtful comments. I agree that publishers are pushing authors to write to the latest trends, and 50 Shades stuff is still considered "hot" (No pun intended.) The steampunk vibe does seem to make sex feel more a real part of that world. In regency, one really has to work to set up the premise of why a young lady would be willing to have sex before marriage . . .it takes some thought to make it believable!

[Andrea Penrose]

Jenny, I think a lot of us try to keep the sex meaningful. I enjoy writing the other aspects of a developing relationships more than the bedroom scenes.

[Vicki]

Thanks for this discussion. I wasn't sure if it was me or not that there seemed to be SO MUCH MORE sex than there used to be. Even more the last 4 or 5 years.

A well written sex scene for a page or two, okay. But when it goes on for 5 or 6 pages or more and it becomes too ... I'm not sure what but too too. Then no. I'd just as soon skip it.

Some of the best scenes were the ones where they go right up to the "heavy" sex then the scene resumes right after. Details weren't necessary. But you had all the good emotional bits.

I'm definitely sorry the editors are pushing for more more more....because it isn't necessary. Romance is much more than lust/sex. It is the thoughts, emotions and interactions of characters that matter and mean something to us.

[Andrea Penrose]

THhanks for sharing your thoughts, Vicky. I, too, feel romance is far more complex than lust—and that many readers are far more interested in the "other" aspects of developing a relationship than they are in the bodily gymnastics.