Back to Top

Monthly Archives: July 2009

Yesterday was the anniversary of Shelley’s death (1792-1822) and today is the birthday of Barbara Cartland (1901-2000) so I thought I’d blog about them both. And yes, there is a connection.

Shelley first: Anarchist, heretic, idealist, fugitive, sponger, love-rat, twentysomething corpse: Percy Shelley was surely the romantic’s romantic … more.

Even his death was unconventional and appropriately mysterious. He drowned in a boating accident, and allegedly foresaw his own death. When his body was cremated his heart did not burn, and Mary Shelley kept it for the rest of her life. (Eeew.)

And now onto Dame Barbara. She wrote some romance novels (which is like saying Shelley was a great poet). But did you know she was also a recording artist? In 1978, she joined up with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra to produce her first and (thankfully) only album, Barbara Cartland’s Album of Love Songs.

Now, whatever your opinion of her as a writer (I’m saying only that it’s a taste I have yet to acquire), the lady can’t sing. Not many people in their 70s can, even if they could before. And the songs–helping upon helping of silken strings, swelling harps, throbbing woodwinds, angelic back up vocals; as the musical spouse commented, “Vaughan Williams in a whimpering mood.”

Each song is sandwiched by Cartland’s “poems”–stuff like this:

A woman must seek all her life until she finds in one man the complete perfect love which is both human and divine. Any sacrifice is worthwhile when one knows the ecstasy, the glory, and the irresistible fires of love.

And if you think her breathless, posh voice for the spoken word is bad, just wait until she sings. What was her arranger thinking? All that I could stand to listen to was way out of her range (if she even had one). How Deep Is the Ocean is particularly bad. Yes, these songs are available for your download and listening pleasure at WFMU, with a review that is less than polite (and with some entertaining typos).

So what do Shelley and Cartland have in common? A lot to answer for, in my grumpy opinion. Shelley made it okay for male writers to behave badly; and Cartland left romance writers an unfortunate legacy. In other words, the cult of the writer-as-personality. But with Shelley it wasn’t just image (Byron, now, is another matter)–he was a passionate, visionary, uh, nutter, who honestly believed in free love and radicalism. Yet his callous horndogginess certainly had repercussions–none of the women with whom he was involved escaped with heart, or even life, intact.

Whereas the Cartland legend–all that pink, pink, pink, the glamorous trappings, big hair, lapdog optional–it’s still with us. I think the Internet has made it even worse–here we are, all over the place, feeding out bits about ourselves on Twitter (yes, I do), Facebook (no), blogs (here I am), and so on… and I’m wondering how much promotion is too much promotion, and how fascinating our lives as writers and all round nice people really are.

What do you think Barbara Cartland or Shelley would have done with the Internet if they’d had access to it?

Meet (most of) the Riskies for more opinionated rants on Saturday, July 18 at 4:00 at Harry’s Pub at the Wardman Park Marriott, and, yes, I will have these buttons available on my other favorite rant topic–the pebbled nub.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 8 Replies

I’m being a bit naughty in this post so move along if such things bother you word-wise. I limited my search to books publishing in the years 1811 – 1820 and written in English. The language restriction didn’t work too well as foreign language books were still returned. But, let’s carry on. Perhaps we’ll put to rest some assumptions or prove them. Which will it be? Regardless, I think the results will be interesting.

I am sorry (I think, but then again, maybe not) that as I followed down this iniquitous path, I started giggling and perhaps going a bit off track. Oh well. You are forewarned. This post degenerates quickly. You might want to stop while it’s still safe.

Bugger

How, exactly, was this word used in the Regency period? As a verb connoting a certain sexual practice? A verb more slightly less specific or perhaps an expletive? The answer appears to be all of the above. Claims that the word was less broadly used than it is today seem to be incorrect.

25 books returned

A few are clearly irrelevant, but just looking at the results we see the word being used in a name-calling sense; In The Lexicom Balatronicum: A blackguard, rascal, term of reproach. But in sources drawn from trials, we see the sexual sense: A Relation of a Quaker, that to the Shame of his Profession, attempted to bugger a Mare… as well as several examples of the word used as an expletive.

Fuck

Oh my

Apparently, this is also a Dutch word. And there are some rather amusing typos where the letter P has been mistaken for F and rendered Shakespeare differently than one would expect. Also, and this is really VERY amusing to me, the Google OCR could not correctly render the long squiggly lowercase letter s that in many books of the period looks a lot like an f but isn’t. Thus instances of say, suck, sucking, sucker and the like become versions of the F-bomb. In fact, the innocent word such comes in for its share of OCR maddness with the ch being reported as ck along with s being replaced with f…

Although this was a very amusing search, it would take hours to find actual instances of the F-word so I’m moving on.

Quim

226 results

Referring, of course, quite naughtily, to a certain part of female anatomy. However, it is also a perfectly innocent nut, and a common and rather boring word in Latin. Also a city and someone’s last name. Oh. Gee. I’m leaving this one and moving on.

Penis

486 results

Lots of boring medical texts, though I’m sure there are pictures. Samuel Cooper’s 1815 book Surgery has my favorite excerpt:

When the attempt fails leeches should be applied to the glans, and the flow of blood be afterwards promoted by immersing the penis in warm water

That does not sound very fun.

Vagina

Hah! The ladies win!! 500 results

Well well well. What have we here? From the Encyclopaedia Perthensis; Or Universal Dictionary of the Arts, Sciences… Volume 2, 1816

The clitoris is a small spongy body bearing some slight analogy and resemblance to the penis in men… This part has been supposed to be the chief seat of a woman’s pleasure in coition as the glans penis is in men, but this is somewhat doubtful.

We can now officially stop saying the clitoris was unknown or nobody knew it might be an important bit for the women. Women surely figured this out on their own, but it seems there were men with a clue. Thank you.

asshole

3 results

To be honest, I expected this. Back in the day, the asshole was a mechanical part; the place for receiving ashes under the grate…. And, alas, we must reduce the search results by one because one of the books is an odd Google OCR error. The text shows the word asshole but the actual page says the whole.

which leads me directly to…

Arse

618 results

Pretty much what you’d expect. So here’s some interesting bits.

From A compleat collection of English proverbs which seems to be something on the order of a Barlett’s Quotations.

  • You would kiss my arse before my breeches are down.
  • Kit careless, your arse hangs by trumps
  • Proverbial similies, in which the Quality and the Subject begin with the same letter:

    as bare as a bird’s arse

And there, I’m done with my juvenile traipse through Google Books. I had fun. Did you?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 11 Replies

Well, my Christmas In July Writing Extravaganza is almost over (yay!). The Christmas Regency novella (a Diamonds of Welbourne Manor spin-off, watch for it next year!) is done and being hacked into shape, and my goal is to finish the Elizabethan Christmas “Undone” story before I leave for RWA on the 14th. (Maybe if I post this goal here, it will come true). But after trying to think about presents and carols and snow in the middle of 4th of July fireworks and 95 degree weather, my brain is tired. Or maybe just lazy. Either way, it’s hard to think of a good blog topic. So here, in no particular order, is a list of What I’ve Been Thinking About Lately (besides Christmas…)

1) TV. I have only very basic cable, so I am always late to TV show parties. Mad Men, Deadwood, etc–I had to wait for Netflix, but now I love them. And right now I am loving True Blood. What a crazy, wacked-out, fantastic show. It sort of reminds me of the sadly-departed Deadwood in that it has a similar dark, gritty atmosphere of weird humor mixed with the gore (even though the settings are very different). But now I have to wait for season 2. (Please tell me there is more Eric in season 2!!!)

2) Sports. I’m not much for sports usually, but there are 3 I enjoy–soccer, bicycling, and tennis. Lucky for me I’ve had 2 out of the 3 in the last week! The Tour de France started, and despite the return of Lance Armstrong (and the fact that he finished a surprising 3rd place after Monday’s stage 3, and has an entirely undiminished ego) my money is still on his Astana teammate Alberto Contador.

In tennis, of course, there was Wimbledon. Despite the fact that my true love (one of them, anyway) Rafa Nadal was not there, that Federer/Roddick match was a classic.

3) Books, of course! I’ve been reading Barbara Tuchman’s The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 (thanks to Andrea Pickens’s excellent rec!). I’m only about 1/4 of the way through right now, but I have to say the first chapter, “The Patricians,” is an excellent portrait of the old aristocratic mindset and responsibilities and privileges. Dukes, earls, marquesses, etc simply did not look at the world like everyone else, and it’s a good thing to remember when creating such a hero. (And I loved the anecdote about the fiery 1st Marchioness of Salisbury, who was responsible for revitalizing the ancient Cecil line, which had gone downhill since Elizabethan times, and who hunted every day until her death at 85, despite being blind and having to be tied to her saddle. A groom would ride beside her, and shout out when she approached a fence, “Jump, dammit, my lady, jump!” And her beautiful daughter-in-law, the 2nd marchioness, had the Duke of Wellington as a devoted admirer. He gave her flags captured at Waterloo to hang in the entrance hall of Hatfield, and wore the coat of the Hatfield Hounds on campaign).

For fun, I’m reading a YA novel by Jacqueline Kolosov, The Red Queen’s Daughter, about Mary Seymour, daughter of Katherine Parr and a magician. (The real Mary probably died in infancy, after her mother’s death in childbirth, though no one knows for sure. In this story she grows up, finds her magic, and goes to the court of Queen Elizabeth). And I just finished our own Risky Carolyn’s My Forbidden Desire, which I stayed up until after 1 in the morning to finish (even though I had work the next day!). Go and read it right now!! (Though Carolyn tells me the next story is not the one I was hoping for, but that’s okay–for now).

4) The RWA conference! It’s impossible to pack light for this, but this year seems more ridiculous than ever. One costume (for the Beau Monde Soiree Wednesday night) along with all the accessories, plus 3 evening gowns, plus 4 day dresses, plus some casual stuff, plus shoes and bags and jewelry. My luggage is taking on Duchess of Windsor proportions here. But I can’t wait to be there!

And BTW, if you are going to RWA be sure and join us (the Riskies) for a drink on Saturday afternoon at 4ish, in harry’s Pub in the Marriott…

What are you thinking about today?

Next Sunday our guest author is none other than NYT Bestseller and RITA winner, Mary Jo Putney! What a treat!

I can credit Mary Jo Putney with helping me forge my love of Regency Romance. The Rake and the Reformer (re-released as The Rake), recommended to me by my friend Helen, was the very first traditional regency I read. I loved that book! (How many times does The Rake and The Reformer appear on lists of favorite historicals?) The Rake and the Reformer began my love affair with the Regency era and sparked my voracious reading of traditional regencies and as many of Mary Jo’s books I could get my hands on.

Mary Jo gave me many wonderful reading experiences. I fell for her Fallen Angel series. Shattered Rainbows first got me interested in Waterloo. And Thunder and Roses had a perfect level of sensuality. I loved the premise of The Bargain and greatly admired The Bride Series, especially The China Bride with its rich recreation of Regency era China.

I could go on and on…

But I was also lucky enough to get to know Mary Jo through Washington Romance Writers. One of my first WRW meetings was a synopsis workshop given by Mary Jo. Mary Jo had invited members to read her latest book (can’t remember which one it was now) ahead of time and to write a synopsis of it for the workshop. Being highly motivated, I came to the meeting with my synopsis, only to discover I was one of two people who had done so.

We were invited to read our synopses to the crowded room. The other member read hers, which turned out to be merely chapter summaries. I read mine and was applauded. Wow. I’d done it right!

(By the way, the member who had done the synopsis all wrong was Catherine Asaro. Catherine, of course, went on to become a super-mega star author of sci fi and fantasy and a Nebula winner.)

Also about this time, I read Mary Jo’s essay “Welcome to the Dark Side” in Dangerous Men Adventurous Women, an early (1992) defense of the Romance genre, another “Aha!” moment about how to craft a Romance hero.

It took me awhile to gain the courage to write a Regency Historical, to aspire to join the likes of Mary Jo. Gasp! But try I did. I had a chance to discuss an early draft with Mary Jo at a Washington Romance Writers Retreat. I remember it so clearly, standing in the lobby of Hilltop House with Mary Jo and then editor Gail Fortune, explaining my story. Mary Jo gave me some excellent advice, which I took wholeheartedly, but mostly her interest helped me to persevere with the book—which eventually became The Mysterious Miss M.

Recently, of course, Mary Jo invited us to discuss The Diamonds of Welbourne Manor on the Word Wenches Blog, which was great exposure for the book.

And yesterday Mary Jo let me know that The Diamonds of Welbourne Manor was reviewed in The Baltimore Sun.

So, really, look what it has done for my writing life to have a Mary Jo Putney in it!

I’m delighted we at Risky Regencies can help get out the word about Mary Jo’s latest book, Loving a Lost Lord, her return to the Regency era (Yay!). Come back next Sunday July 13 to read her interview and comment for a chance to win a copy of Loving a Lost Lord.

What is your favorite Mary Jo Putney book?
Do you have a favorite Mary Jo Putney moment?

Follow
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join millions of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com