Confession: I subscribe to way too many fashion/beauty magazines. I’m addicted to them–my bedroom is full of copies of Vogue, Elle, In Style, Allure. It’s like lipgloss porn. And with a new Sephora open near my house, I have a place to go for a prime “fix.” (The funny thing is, I read about all these new products, make lists, pore over the makeup counters, sometimes even buy stuff. But I always go back to the same things in the end–Clinique eyeshadow, Chanel lipstick, Maybelline Great Lash).

In the January Allure there’s an article called “Beauty Secrets” about some of the extreme lengths women go to in order to look beautiful. Waxing, plucking, Botoxing, etc. One woman slathers herself all over with olive oil and wraps up in a sheet, mummy-like, before going to bed. But her ex-boyfriend was “appalled. I thought we were past this gotta-be-a-goddess stage. But no.”

Of course, suffering for beauty is nothing new. We’ve been doing it since Egyptian women stuck perfumed cones of wax on their heads and let them melt. Maybe cavewomen even set up day spas in open rock formations. One of my favorite “cosmetic history” sources isn’t Regency but Elizabethan, a 16th century pamphlet called “A dialogue of the faire perfectioning of ladies.” I have a modern reprint of this interesting early version of Allure, written as a dialogue between two kinswomen, Raffaella and Margaret, as Raffaella guides Maragret through the intricacies of glamour. She recommends such things as a lotion of “Malmsey wine, white vinegar, honey, lily flowers, fresh beans, verdigris, right silver, rock salt, sandiver, rock alum, and sugar alum.” At least this isn’t quite as toxic as some of the other preparations, like white lead paint for the face and bosom! Or like this one:

“…One takes pure silver and quicksilver and, when they are ground in the mortar, one adds ceruse and burnt rock alum, and then for a day they are ground together again and afterwards moistened with mastic until all is liquid; then all is boiled in rainwater and, the boiling down done, one casts some sublimate upon the mortar; this is done three times and the water cast on the fourth time is kept together with the body of the lye.”

Would you try this sort of thing in order to be fashionable? What about in your modern life? Any favorite beauty products, whether or not it involves olive oil? (because I’m always looking for new things to try!). Or do you have any beauty resolutions for the new year? Mine is to remember to reapply my lipstick, instead of just slapping it on in the morning and forgetting about it…

Yesterday, I dropped off the revised manuscript of my purported Regency-set historical, Lessons In Love, to my agent. She asked me how I felt about the revision, and I said I liked it better now, but I wasn’t totally in love with the story. In discussing the challenges I’m facing with LIL, she mentioned that a lot of former traditional Regency authors have queried her with their Regency-set historicals but are having problems making their stories as big as a single-title Regency-set historical should be.

In other words, the plot for a traditional Regency can be smaller–will the lady be forced to become a governess, or can she snare the love of her life, because she promised her mother she would only marry for love, whereas a Regency-set historical is big–will the lady be forced to become a prostitute AND leave her family AND betray English secrets to the French, oh, and also she promised her mother she would only marry for love. It’s hard to think of creative ways to make the plot big without also adding in some eye-rolling at how ludicrously overwrought it is (or maybe that’s just me).

What do you think? Do you like BIG books? Are there single-title authors who use “small” plots but execute them in a big style? Are you tired of spies, or do you want more? And did you promise your mother you would only marry for love?

Megan
www.meganframpton.com

Hilarious Romantic Times
Sophisticated, sexy, surprising J R Ward
Enthusiastic…intriguing and addicting Publishers Weekly

Meet Colleen Gleason whose first book, already with some great reviews and a lot of online buzz, comes out this week. From today’s (relevant) comments and questions, one winner will receive a copy of The Rest Falls Away, so come join in the fun!

Colleen, congratulations and welcome to the Riskies. Tell us about your book.
The Rest Falls Away is the first in a series about Victoria Gardella Grantworth, a young lady who lives in Regency-era London. She’s just about to make her debut into Society when she learns that she comes from a family of vampire hunters, and that she’s been chosen to take up the task.
Victoria has to learn how to fight (all those body appendages she isn’t supposed to know about actually come in handy!), she has to figure out how to sneak out of the house at night to stalk vampires, and, most pressing of all…she has to figure out where on earth she can hide her stake. Her reticule just isn’t big enough, and she certainly can’t go to Almack’s with a stake in hand.
Oh, and she has to catch a husband. Of course.
Victoria’s mother doesn’t know her daughter is a vampire hunter, and nor does the rest of Society know that the vampire queen Lilith has come back to London, minions in tow, in search of a book of enchantments.
I’d like to let your readers who don’t generally like paranormals in on a little secret: I don’t read vampire novels, nor do I particularly like paranormals. Therefore, my book isn’t a gory, horror novel. There aren’t any brooding vampires who turn out to be the heroes. The story is mostly about Victoria, a woman who has the chance to be something more than just another Regency miss. A woman who has choices to make, a duty to respond to, and a freedom that other women of that time would not only have dreamed of–but might even have been frightened of. She’s a superheroine trying to live a balanced life in a time where Society women aren’t supposed to do much other than wed, bed, and breed.
One more thing: since this is the first book in a series, a true series, about Victoria Gardella Grantworth, there isn’t a traditional happily ever after ending. Yet.

Where did the idea for the Gardellas come from? And why did you choose the Regency period for the setting?
I became addicted to Buffy the Vampire Slayer a few years ago. I loved the dual sides of her life, I loved the unexpected–that she didn’t look or act like a superhero, yet she had all of these extra powers and a duty that she had to bear. In Buffy, we’re told that “once in every generation” a woman is chosen to be The Slayer, and that got me to thinking about Buffy’s predecessors. What had it been like for them–as it was so difficult for her, here in the 20th century? And then of course, I know that the Regency is a very popular time period for books, so I merged the two together and voila! The idea was born.
But I didn’t feel that I could fully tell Victoria’s story in one book, so I decided to make it a series. And while in Buffy, she’s the only Slayer, that’s not the case in my series. The mythology and the alternate world is quite different than that of Buffy; so anyone who’s expecting a sort of fan fiction would be disappointed.

What research did you have to do for the books?
I watched a lot of Buffy! (Just kidding. Seriously, I’ve only watched the first three and a half seasons.)
I actually did a lot of research about vampire mythology, because, as I mentioned, I don’t really read vampire books. I was trying to find a mythology that worked for me, but at the same time, I wanted it to be comfortable to a non-paranormal reader. We all know vampires die from a stake to the heart, that they can’t go out in sunshine, that they’re frightened of silver, etc. So I didn’t mess with that part of the legend.
And of course, some of that legend comes from the Regency’s own Byron and Polidori (who, by the way, both make appearances in the second Gardella book Rises the Night.)
I also of course had to make sure I researched the Regency period. I did that by reading a lot of Risky Regency author books :-), along with Jane Austen, and using other non-fiction resources. Oh, and I think I might have watched the BBC’s Pride & Prejudice a few times. Purely for research purposes, of course.

What are the challenges of writing a series about the same set of characters and how do you keep track of all the details?
The biggest challenge is making sure I think ahead about the series, so that I don’t write something that boxes me into a corner for future books. So far, that hasn’t happened, but I’ve had to catch myself a few times from falling into that trap. I keep a binder notebook–a three-incher–with all of my notes and research and character stuff tabbed in the notebook. I keep actual text from the manuscripts in there, from each book, especially in regards to character description and even dialogue. That’s the only way I can keep myself organized! I probably need charts and family trees, but I’m not there yet.
One thing I love about writing a series with the same characters in it is the fact that I have multiple books in which I can spread and develop their story. I’m in no hurry to tell their tales, resolve their happy endings, etc. While the main plot of the book is resolved each time by The End, the character development and arcs are not. They simply can’t be, for they’re too complex.

What’s coming up next for you?
I’m currently writing the third Gardella book, which is due to be released in early 2008. Rises the Night, the second Gardella, will be out in June.

And the Risky question: Is there anything you would have liked to include in The Rest Falls Away that you left out because you or your editor felt it was too risky?
Not in this book. I was a little worried about the ending because it’s not a traditional HEA, but my editor loved it, so I wouldn’t consider that a risky proposition. However, ask me the same question about Rises the Night, and I’ll have a different answer!

Thanks so much, Riskies, for having me! I feel very lucky to be included with such a great, talented group of ladies, several of whom I know personally.

I’ve been spending this week trying to ditch the post sinus infection and holiday blues. I’m back to lifting (lighter weights so I don’t snap something!), swimming (fewer laps) and telling myself that no matter how rusty I am, I need to get back to work on my mess-in-progress (which WILL happen once I finish this blog post).

Also, while pushing the dual rocks of fitness and writing back uphill, I’ve been noodling around for fun things to look forward to: projects to do, books to read. Movies to see.

Here’s one that’s on my list: a new version of JANE EYRE from BBC, starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. It’s coming out on DVD in February. (Read more at www.bbc.co.uk).

Although I’ve enjoyed the three versions of P&P I’ve seen, I haven’t yet seen a version of JE that totally worked for me. The version with George C Scott and Susannah York is a classic but mucks with the story more than I like. The William Hurt version–well, I like him in some movies but think he was terribly miscast as Rochester. The Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton version felt rushed though I liked her as Jane. The version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke is my favorite so far but he doesn’t look quite right for the part.

As for this new version, I’ve heard some buzz that the dialogue has been adapted for modern audiences. As I’m not a purist, this doesn’t particularly scare me but I hope they keep the flavor of the dialogue between Rochester and Jane, my favorite bits where he barks out rude questions and she refuses to let him unsettle her. Toby Stephens may just work as Rochester. And he’s got floppy hair, too. 🙂

Here are some links to YouTube, a trailer for the series and the scene after Jane saves Rochester from being burnt in his bed.

I’m feeling better already. How about you?

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

Why does hair on a man’s forehead somehow make him suddenly seem sensitive, or artistic, or deep?

It’s all due to those….those Romantics, isn’t it?

Shelley… Keats… Byron…. They have a lot to answer for, don’t they?

They left us with the unwavering feeling that a man with hair falling over his forehead, or even into his eyes a bit, has a profound and passionate soul.

Or was it the Romantics?

What is it about men with hair falling in their eyes?

Certainly, both Colin Firth’s Mr. Darcy and Matthew Macfadyen’s Mr. Darcy have their moments of romantic hair glory — the former’s curls, and the latter’s wisps, falling over the brow, showing emotion, and beauty, and….. love?

Is this what makes a woman’s heart turn over? Hair falling forward?

If so, is it really all due to the Romantics?

I suspect that it was indeed the great hippie-like passions and philosophy and art of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and the hair the era loved, which have imprinted us forever.

And just in case you think I’m merely making fun of this idea, let me assure you that I’m not.

I am a total sucker for floppy hair.

Case in point: Peter Petrelli.

On the new TV show “Heroes”, Peter Petrelli (played by Milo Ventimiglia) is the sensitive younger brother of a conniving politician.

Peter, though, is a nurse, and a good son, and falls in love with women who prefer heroin-addicted artists, and feels oh-so-much pain, and love, and longing…

And when he gets a chance to lay down his life to save someone, he takes it.

Sigh.

And you knew it all the minute you saw the hair.

Cara
(who actually whined excessively about the long hair of the guy on the cover of MY LADY GAMESTER, because Stoke is no romantic, and that guy on the cover just looks like a smug, self-satisfied twit)