CONGRATULATIONS, flchen1!!!
You have won a copy of A MOST UNCONVENTIONAL MATCH by Julia Justiss.
Please email riskies@yahoo.com to claim your prize.
The Riskies
CONGRATULATIONS, flchen1!!!
You have won a copy of A MOST UNCONVENTIONAL MATCH by Julia Justiss.
Please email riskies@yahoo.com to claim your prize.
The Riskies
It seems sacrilegious to follow Cara’s post on Pride & Prejudice with one on Sex and the City, but I finally saw it this weekend and can’t resist the urge to discuss it with you. I promise to do my best to stay on topic!
I will not discuss Carrie’s wedding dress. Or the possible hazards of sleeping in pearls. Or gladiator shoes. Or those horrific pants Samantha wears to the shower. I will not talk about the studded belt, or even about those gorgeous blue Manolos. No, I won’t talk about any of these things!
What I’d like to talk about is predictability. Many of the official reviews of the film were negative and the single biggest complaint I noticed was that the plot was predictable. Yet many fans rave about this film and I loved it too. Apparently, predictability isn’t the biggest issue for many people.
I think what saved it for fans is that they love the characters. The series established Carrie and her friends so well that we know all their flaws and quirks and can guess what challenges they’re going to face as their relationships progress. But we still like spending time with them.
Being a writer, I couldn’t help thinking about what might have been done to make the plot less predictable. Frankly, I was stumped. This was very much a character-driven series. It’s not like a mystery or action/adventure series where you can vary things by introducing a new villain or new threat to world peace or whatever. The surprises in a series like this come from revealing new aspects of character. But with these characters we’ve passed many of the big revelations. It’s more of a gradual evolution now as they don’t change so much as become more themselves.
To have Carrie, her friends and their men behave unpredictably one would likely have to have them go out of character, which would have bothered fans of the series far more. To me, predictability seems a lesser crime than being untrue to your characters.
In a standalone film or novel, this isn’t as much of an issue because the viewer or reader doesn’t already know the main characters and it’s easier to create surprises as layers get peeled away. But at some point, some readers (especially those who are also writers) can often predict what the characters’ Black Moment is going to be and even how it might end. It’s hard to keep the characterization true and also surprise a reader who takes the time to step back and make predictions. I aim for that but I also hope that my readers will become so engaged with my characters that they start seeing that world through the characters’ eyes. Then hopefully they’ll ache along with them and forget that they know better.
So what do you think about predictability in stories? If you saw it, did you enjoy SATC? And do you love these shoes as much as I do? (They’re only about $1000. A bargain, right?)
Elena
www.elenagreene.com
Welcome to the Jane Austen Movie Club!
We here at Risky Regencies love to talk about movie and TV adaptations of Regency-era novels…and today we’re talking about the 1980 BBC version of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE! (Also known as “the one with David Rintoul.”)
I watched this adaptation first when I was a teenager, and then again a decade later. The first time, I had already read the novel (at least once), but no other Austen. I recall liking it all right, but not being thrilled with it.
The second time, I had read all of Austen’s novels at least twice, but not seen many adaptations of her works. My housemate (the oft-mentioned book-goddess Heather) and I started putting on Regency “teas” — casual affairs where we would watch Austen adaptations and try out period recipes (I had a little trouble with the orange fool, but the syllabub was delicious.)
I recall our friend Jack (a Jane Austen Ball veteran — when he dances a Trip to Paris, all the kittens run and hide so they don’t get stepped on!) recommended this adaptation when we had our Pride and Prejudice tea — if I recall correctly, he particularly liked David Rintoul’s interpretation of Darcy.
I know I did like this version better that time than I had when I’d first seen it. Was it my greater knowledge of Austen, or of the period? Or was it the wine in the syllabub? Only Jane Austen knows!
I have now watched this adaptation a third time, so let the discussion begin!
To aid the discussion, I’ve listed the major credits below; tidbits about where else you may have seen the actor are in italics.
DIRECTOR: Cyril Coke
SCREENPLAY: Fay Weldon
CAST:
Sabina Franklyn: Jane Bennet
Elizabeth Garvie: Elizabeth Bennet
Garvie appeared as Diana Rivers in the 1997 version of JANE EYRE (the one with Ciaran Hinds.)
Tessa Peake-Jones: Mary Bennet
Peake-Jones played Bridget Allworthy in the 1997 TOM JONES.
Clare Higgins: Kitty Bennet
Natalie Ogle: Lydia Bennet
Moray Watson: Mr. Bennet
Priscilla Morgan: Mrs. Bennet
David Rintoul: Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy
Regency fans will also have seen Rintoul as Dr. Clive, ship’s surgeon on two episodes of the recent HORNBLOWER series.
Osmund Bullock: Mr. Bingley
Marsha Fitzalan: Caroline Bingley
Jennifer Granville: Mrs. Hurst
Edward Arthur: Mr. Hurst
Irene Richard: Charlotte Lucas
Richard played Elinor in the 1981 SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, and Mrs. Fitzherbert in the 1996 A ROYAL SCANDAL.
Peter Howell: Sir William Lucas
Malcolm Rennie: Mr. Collins
Peter Settelen: Mr. Wickham
Andrew Johns: Capt. Denny
Michael Lees: Mr. Gardiner
Barbara Shelley: Mrs. Gardiner
Moir Leslie: Anne de Bourgh
Judy Parfitt: Lady Catherine de Bourgh
Emma Jacobs: Georgiana Darcy
Elizabeth Stewart: Lady Lucas
Desmond Adams: Col. Fitzwilliam
So…what did you think? And if you haven’t seen it recently, how well did you like it when you last saw it?
All answers welcome!
And come back the first Tuesday of next month, when we’ll be discussing the film MASTER AND COMMANDER!
Cara
Cara King, who can’t think of anything clever to put in her sig line
Last week, Janet likened the prevalence of PTSD heroes in historical romance to war profiteering. I have to agree. But her words scare me too, because I’m writing a war-scarred though not classic PTSD hero myself and always worry that I will not do him justice. I feel it’s important to respect history and the real people who suffered through similar events. I hope that respect comes through in my work.
But what makes the difference between Artificially Injected Angst and the real thing?
Looking at both our current projects and our backlist, many of us Riskies have written military heroes. We’re also writing or have written stories about emotional and/or physical abuse, addiction, loss of close loved ones, and other issues that we may or may not have experienced personally. I’ve always been suspicious of the adage “Write what you know”. I’ve since heard “Write what you love” or “Write what you care about” and that’s what we do.
I think that makes all the difference. If a writer cares about an issue enough to make it a central theme in a story, she ought to do the necessary immersion. If she’s content with Wikipedia level research or less, it shows. (I put down a romance when I realized, just a few pages in, that the author thought the British were fighting the Portuguese in the Peninsula, not the French.) This is why we Riskies and friends regularly break our research book budgets or become good friends with librarians.
I also think it is AIA when a tortured hero (or heroine, though they seem less common) is defined by his issues. As a reader, I want to know what makes the character different from others with similar problems. Is he naturally an introvert or an extrovert? Impulsive or cautious? What are his strengths and passions? Most importantly, how does he deal with the problem? People don’t all react the same way and that’s exactly why yet another story about a scarred military hero or any other flavor of tortured character can still be interesting.
What do you think makes the difference between the tortured and the merely trite?
Elena
www.elenagreene.com
It has occurred to me that if I were to write a Regency dance scene, I could draw on certain experiences I’ve had doing English country dance to flesh it out.
I don’t mean the basics — I mean the little things…
And as I’m not planning on writing a dance scene anytime soon, I thought I’d share the ideas…because ideas like company.
Here are a few things that I think a Regency woman might not care for in a partner, or indeed in any of the many people she will dance with during a country dance:
1) Unpleasant hands. Now, I know that gloves would change things a lot — but I still think that over the course of a long ball, a Regency dancer might still end up with hands that are so hot, cold, or damp that they’re not so pleasant to hold, even for a moment.
2) Men who mess up the steps. And of course everyone will mess up the steps sometime or other — but if a Regency lady has her foot stepped on (especially by a man) or is crashed into with force by someone (particularly a large man), I think it would still extremely unpleasant.
3) Men who mess up the steps, and then insist that she was wrong. This is, quite literally, adding insult to injury. And I suspect it happened quite a bit more in Regency times than now.
4) Men who cannot take hints. Or commands. Sometimes the woman knows what the man’s next move is, and he does not. And he knows that he does not. So if he has no idea where he should be going, why would he be so reluctant to advance toward the lady holding out her hand to him? Or to move where she is so politely pointing, waving, nudging, looking, or telling him? Could it be that he thinks that if he doesn’t know a thing, no one else can? Or is it just that no female can? Or is he just one of those single-minded men who are so busy trying to remember a thing, that they cannot notice anything else?
5) Other Way, Mister Collins! The ladies in the Firth/Ehle Pride and Prejudice say this, repeatedly. And yes, some men (and women) just can never learn a certain step. Even the fiftieth time. Even if they’ve just crashed into their partner forty-nine times. (It reminds me of the bee in Bee Movie: “Maybe it’ll work this time! Or this time! This time! This time!”) I think the emotion this particular behavior produces, however, (assuming there is no physical pain), is more likely to be astonishment than annoyance.
6) Couples (or singles) who leave a dance in the middle. From the middle. A country dance is a complex organism, and if a couple that is not at the bottom of the set gets bored and leaves, chaos inevitably ensues. It’s rather like pulling on a loose thread in your sweater — the entire thing quickly turns to mush. But some folks just don’t care. (I suspect they’re those More Important Than You people — you know, the ones who cut in front of you in line, who smoke where they’re not allowed, who talk on their phones during movies.)
Well, those are the things that occur to me. How about you? If you’ve done any English Country Dance (or other ballroom dance), do you have anything to add to the list?
And remember: next Tuesday, be sure to come by to discuss (or learn about) the 1980 BBC PRIDE AND PREJUDICE! (The one with David Rintoul and Elizabeth Garvie.)
Cara
Cara King, who can shaw-side or sharp-side or do a sheepskin hey