Back to Top

Author Archives: Elena Greene

About Elena Greene

Elena Greene grew up reading anything she could lay her hands on, including her mother's Georgette Heyer novels. She also enjoyed writing but decided to pursue a more practical career in software engineering. Fate intervened when she was sent on a three year international assignment to England, where she was inspired to start writing romances set in the Regency. Her books have won the National Readers' Choice Award, the Desert Rose Golden Quill and the Colorado Romance Writers' Award of Excellence. Her Super Regency, LADY DEARING'S MASQUERADE, won RT Book Club's award for Best Regency Romance of 2005 and made the Kindle Top 100 list in 2011. When not writing, Elena enjoys swimming, cooking, meditation, playing the piano, volunteer work and craft projects. She lives in upstate New York with her two daughters and more yarn, wire and beads than she would like to admit.

Here are more of Stapleton’s views on his fellow Europeans:

Excerpted from THE ROAD TO KNOWLEDGE: Or, Young Man & Woman’s Best Friend, by George Stapleton, published in London in 1797.

On THE ENGLISH:

As to the PEOPLE, though they are characterized by those of other countries for generosity, they do not display any great share of it among each other; the higher classes seem not to care much for the lower, and the lower care as little for the higher. With respect to the military part, the English soldiers are as good as any in Europe; and as to the sailors, they are the best in the world.

On THE DUTCH:

As to the Dutch, as a people, their character is pretty well known throughout Europe. How far their extreme love of money is reconciled to requisitions and contributions in support of their allies, I know not. It seems to be, however, the general opinion, that, with respect to a change in government, they have been rather mistaken in their politics.

On THE PRUSSIANS:

The inhabitants are stout, robust, laborious people.

On THE SPANISH:

The natives of Spain are represented as proud, haughty, and indolent: even the peasants, like the Welch, keep geneologies of their families. The Spanish ladies are fond of paint, and are kept much at home, through the jealousy of their husbands. The men, at least such as are liberally educated, discover a great genius for learning, as appears from the number of learned men and works which this kingdom has produced, though greatly limited in their researches into some subjects by their excessive bigotry to their religion. As for wit and genius, either in dramatic or romantic performances, they are allowed to be excellent; nor would they be defective in point of politics, were their sentiments not fettered by a despotic government.

On THE GERMANS:

With respect to the people of Germany, their genius has appeared in the invention and improvement of many mechanical arts, especially clockwork…

On THE POLISH:

The Poles are naturally active, hardy, and robust. The gentry have many virtues; they are open, generous, and hospitable; very civil to strangers; and, for the most part, men of honour: their greatest failing is vanity, and strong inclination to live, after their manner, in a wild kind of magnificence. The Polish ladies are generally fair and comely, and abhor painting and washes; they are said to be women of exemplary piety and virtue, both in their public behaviour, and in their domestic economy. But as to the meaner sort of people, they are, to a fault, ignorant and slothful; which, however, is rather to be charged to the constitution of their Government, than any natural disposition or temper; for where the law has rendered peasants incapable of possessing property, one cannot suppose they will take pains to acquire it.

On THE HUNGARIANS:

The inhabitants are a brave people, but haughty.

On THE RUSSIANS:

The natives are in general robust, well-shaped, and of tolerable good complexion… The Czar, or Emperor, is a despotic Prince, and his subjects are all vassals.

On THE NORWEGIANS:

The people are robust, and inured to hard labour.

On THE SWEDISH:

The natives are of a robust constitution, and well calculated for hard labour. There is not country in the world where the women work so hard; for they till the ground, thresh the corn, and even row boats on the sea.

So…. Which of the above stereotypes surprises you the most? Do you think most of his stereotypes here reflect the standard stereotypes of his day, or do you suspect was he inventing his own, based on the people he’d met? (And did you notice how often he characterizes a people as “robust”?)

(And don’t forget about our next meeting of the Jane Austen Movie Club, the first Tuesday in August, when we’ll be discussing the Gwyneth Paltrow version of EMMA!)

Cara
who is stout, occasionally robust, but definitely not inured to hard labour

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 11 Replies

A week or two ago Amanda complained about the lame “sitting around in our underwear” ending on the 2007 version of Pride & Prejudice. It made me wonder (not for the first time) how I would have ended the film.

Riskies and friends probably all know that scene was added for the North American version; in the British release the film ends with Mr. Bennett giving his blessing to the marriage.

While I like a bit of basking in the glow of the happy ending–and definitely wanted something there, this ending didn’t hit me quite right. The first time I saw it it felt too sentimental. On viewing it again, though, when Lizzie talks of Darcy being cross with her, it reminded me of this passage from the book:

She began now to comprehend that he was exactly the man who, in disposition and talents, would most suit her. His understanding and temper, though unlike her own, would have answered all her wishes. It was an union that must have been to the advantage of both; by her ease and liveliness, his mind might have been softened, his manners improved; and from his judgment, information, and knowledge of the world, she must have received benefit of greater importance.

It’s a realistic happy ending. They won’t always agree but they’ll find a balance. I’m glad there was at least a hint of that in this final scene.

A couple other things bothered me more. First, the “sitting around in our underwear” thing. Not that I’m against characters cavorting half-naked in a garden–I’ve written such scenes. Nor do I have anything against snogging–only purists argue that JA never wrote a snogging scene. But I like to know the setup, i.e., what happened to all the servants? Surely they’re not all staring from their attic windows?!

The other thing is that this scene feels post-coital, so it seemed a bit out of order for them to be discussing what to call one another. It was just confusing.

I’m not sure how I would have ended the film. Jane Austen ended the book with a chapter of narrative describing what happened to everyone. It’s all nicely encapsulated in the wedding scene at the end of the 1995 Firth/Ehle version. Yet a double wedding scene doesn’t seem right for the 2007 version which is shorter, more intimate and more focused on Elizabeth and Darcy.

My idea would be to show the beginning of the wedding night, in their bedchamber (more believable for their first time) and with more of the lovely, youthful, somewhat awkward chemistry that we saw in the mist scene. Then a discreet fadeout to the theme music.

So anyway, it’s time for a poll. How would you have ended this film and why?

A) North American ending as is, sweet talk, snogging and all.

B) British ending, with Mr. Bennett welcoming suitors for Mary and Kitty.

C) Wedding scene as in the 1995 version

D) My idea – wedding night scene

E) Something else – do tell!

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

I’ve been back from my England/France trip for over a week now, and I’m beginning to settle back in. (Though a quick trip to Kansas City didn’t help, either in terms of jetlag or Putting Stuff Away.) So today’s post will be catching up on this and that, and rather miscellaneous.

JANE AUSTEN MOVIE CLUB

Thank you to everyone who joined in the discussion for our first “meeting” of the Jane Austen Movie Club last week, when we discussed the 1995 Persuasion! What a lot of fun.

Our next meeting will be August 7 (remember, it’s always the first Tuesday of the month), and we will discuss the 1996 Emma (the one starring Gwyneth Paltrow.) It’s short, it’s easy to find, and I know there are differences of opinion on it, so I think it should be fun to discuss! (And Lois already has a copy.) 🙂

KEAN


While in London, Todd and I saw the new production of the 1953 Sartre play Kean (which is itself a reworking of a much earlier Dumas play).

I know very little about the Dumas original, but the Sartre play takes what it wants from Kean’s life, and substitutes fiction for the rest. So the Kean socializing with the Prince of Wales is not only older than Kean was during the Regency, but older than Kean ever lived to be. (And still single!)

So what Sartre did, basically, was take the idea of Kean — a not-terribly-handsome actor from a lowly background, whose passionate and groundbreaking acting style made him an overly-indulged celebrity — and use it to talk about reality vs art (and various other things) in a play (which is nonetheless full of humor).

One choice of director Adrian Noble really threw me in this production: he set it during the 1950’s… I confess, I’d much rather have seen a Regency setting!

Here’s a picture of Antony Sher as Kean. (Photo credit: Tristram Kenton.) Interestingly, Sher is famous on the London stage for playing some of Kean’s favorite roles, including Richard III and Shylock.

Reviews of this production were mixed, with most seeing some problems with it. (For a nice overview, see http://www.theatre.com/story/id/3007600 ). The mixed reviews may have led to the low attendance which is causing the show to close earlier than originally stated…though it’s not the only show in the West End with that problem. (The musical The Drowsy Chaperone, even with Elaine Paige in the lead, is closing six months ahead of schedule, after a miniscule run.)

I confess I was severely jetlagged while watching the play…so perhaps I didn’t give it a fair trial. I found it amusing, and it certainly held the attention (the gentleman next to me who slept through it was, I am convinced, even more jetlagged than I.) But it didn’t seem to entirely succeed as much of anything, in my opinion. Sher was fine, as were the other actors — I’m not sure if I’d blame the script or the direction, but in the end none of it seemed to matter (and there were parts where things seemed to suddenly change, and the audience felt like we’d been lied to a bit, which I hate.)

I’M BACK!

The big news is I survived Heathrow! We flew the day after the terrorist attack on Glasgow — it was insanely confused and stressful (though, come to think of it, most of that was probably just Heathrow being true to itself). Then we flew to Kansas City and back, ending up stuck in our plane on the runway for an extra hour due to an unattended package.

But now I’m back! Back from London and the French Riviera. Back in the land of Mexican restaurants, the land of soft drink refills (and iced tea!), the land of wide streets and too many, too-wide cars. The land of cheap stuff, of smoggy skies, of dollar bills that all look alike, of freeways and Asian groceries and ranch dressing.

So…what do you notice when you come back home from somewhere?

And for those of you going to conference — have a great time!

Cara
Cara King, author of My Lady Gamester, who hasn’t left a bag unattended in a very long time

When I realized my blog day was also the 4th, of course I had to think about the Regency connection. Then I remembered reading somewhere that the stress of the American revolution (along with problems with France and liberal opposition at home) contributed to the breakdown of George III’s health and sanity. His final lapse, of course, resulted in Prinny acting as Regent between 1809-1820.

But actually I have to fess up and admit that linking America’s founding fathers’ actions to the Regency (and its romance subgenre) is pretty far-fetched. Though some scholars in the past have made attempts to psychoanalyse George III, most experts now attribute his mental breakdown to porphyria, a hereditary disease which in extreme form can cause insanity. Recent analysis of the king’s hair indicates his condition was worsened by traces of arsenic in the James’ powder with which he was dosed.

Back to Independence Day. I enjoy it but have to confess it isn’t a particularly special holiday for me. My grandparents and parents came from Lithuania, fleeing communist oppression, and they taught me to appreciate what is great about this country. But they never were really hooked in with American holidays and traditions. Also, I have relatives in Lithuania, Italy, Finland, Canada and Australia, so even besides my galloping Anglophilia, I have ties to other countries besides the U.S.A.

I still think of myself as patriotic. I vote, I sometimes write letters to government officials, I volunteer in my community and I’m trying to raise my children to be good citizens. But I don’t have any family tradition of an annual 4th of July barbecue. I don’t mind if other people swathe themselves head to toe in flag images (anything that makes you happy!) but it’s just not me.

My family and I will celebrate in our own way. Last year at the request of my children I made a red, white and blue dessert with vanilla ice cream, raspberries and blueberries. Apparently this is now a “tradition”. Easy enough, I’ll do it again!

After dinner, weather permitting, we might go to the fireworks show at a local park. It won’t hurt us to listen to the 1812 overture again. Good bombastic fun and well-suited for fireworks, after all. Though I wonder how many people listening know it was composed to celebrate Russia’s victory over Napoleon and includes the Marseillaise, the French national anthem?

So how about you? Do you celebrate Independence Day and how? And can anyone explain how the 1812 Overture became a staple for the occasion?

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

Welcome to the first meeting of the JANE AUSTEN MOVIE CLUB!

The first Tuesday of each month, we’ll be discussing a different Jane Austen film or TV adaptation.

This month: the 1995 version of PERSUASION.

If you’ve ever seen it, please join in the discussion!

As this is our first meeting, I’ll start by saying a few words about how this will work.

After gathering suggestions, I’ll announce each forthcoming selection a month ahead of time.

On the day of the meeting, I’ll put useful and pertinent info in my post to help the discussion (such as cast lists, etc, so we don’t have to go searching for names.)

I may also suggest topics to discuss — but if I do, these will just be suggestions! So please, discuss whatever aspects you wish.

So: this month’s film: 1995’s PERSUASION.

Tidbit: although this was shown first as a television movie in the UK, it was released in movie theatres in the US.

MOVIE DETAILS (courtesy imdb.com):

Director: Roger Michell

Screenwriter: Nick Dear

CAST:

Anne Elliot: Amanda Root

Wentworth: Ciaran Hinds

Tidbit: Ciaran Hinds played Rochester in the 1997 Jane Eyre

Lady Russell: Susan Fleetwood

Sir Walter: Corin Redgrave

Elizabeth Elliot: Phoebe Nicholls

Mrs. Clay: Felicity Dean


Mary Musgrove: Sophie Thompson

Tidbit: Sophie Thompson had a role in another Austen adaptation — she played Miss Bates in the Gwyneth Paltrow version of Emma. She is also the sister of Emma Thompson, who played Elinor (and wrote the screenplay) for the 1995 Sense and Sensibility

Charles Musgrove: Simon Russell Beale

Louisa Musgrove: Emma Roberts

Henrietta Musgrove: Victoria Hamilton

Mrs. Musgrove: Judy Cornwell

Mr. Musgrove: Roger Hammond

Captain Harville: Robert Glenister

Captain Benwick: Richard McCabe

Tidbit: Actor Richard McCabe had a role in Notting Hill, also directed by Roger Michell

Mrs. Harville: Sally George

Admiral Croft: John Woodvine

Mrs. Croft: Fiona Shaw

Mr. Elliot: Samuel West

Tidbit: Samuel West also appeared in one installment of the recent Hornblower series, as St. John Rivers in the 1996 Jane Eyre, and as the poet Southey in the 2000 film Pandaemonium

Nurse Rook: Jane Wood

Mrs. Smith: Helen Schlesinger

As I said before, please discuss any aspect of the movie that you wish!

But if you don’t know where to start, here are a few ideas:

Did any of the actors seem to you to be perfect for their roles?

Did you think any of the actors were miscast?

If you’ve read the book, what did you think of the screenplay? Did you think any of the characters were changed in a way that weakened the story? Did you think the right things were cut or shortened?

If you haven’t read the book, did you find the movie easy to follow? Was it confusing in places? Could you keep all the characters straight?

How did the low lighting in nighttime scenes work for you?

How about the long wordless passages?

Overall, how well did you like the movie?

Anyway, those are just a few questions that may spark answers! Answer any or none, answer other questions, or pose your own.

And one more question: do you have a suggestion for what adaptation we should discuss at the next meeting of the Jane Austen Movie Club, which will meet the first Tuesday of August?

Cara
Cara King, author of My Lady Gamester, and Austen movie nut

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 31 Replies
Follow
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join millions of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com