Back to Top

Category: Research

Posts in which we talk about research

I have been working hard at what’s turning out to be a total rewrite of the WIP (Work In Progress). I hope to have it out for an outside read soon …. Nevertheless, the pages keep needing to be re-written.

It’s been fun learning about boxing in the Regency.  It’s not been so fun learning about how wagers work. It’s slightly more complicated than I wanted it to be.  Lay down money! Lose money/Win money! But now, I hope, I don’t have an egregiously wrong/hopelessly vague scene(s) involving money and betting and such.

My brain hurts. And no effing wonder some of these guys lost fortunes!

An Iniquitous Past

In a previous job, I ran the office football pool. I had all the games, the spread, the actual points scored by quarter etc. in a database and I used to slice and dice the results. This was long enough ago that Joe Montana was the 49ers new QB and it looked like maybe he was a better player than anyone expected… and here’s what I learned:

1. The 49ers ALWAYS beat the spread, even when they lost. There was no point EVER not taking the 49ers. Long before any of the papers were writing about the 49er defense, I could see from the mid-season numbers that there was no team even close to as good as the 49ers D. They were the #1 defense across all teams — that is, basically, almost no one scored against the 49ers D, and if they did, it usually didn’t happen in the 2nd half.

2. There were several teams that were consistently favored to win by large spreads and they almost never did. By mid-season, the numbers simply did not support ever picking those teams. The same was true of a couple of other teams, who were doing consistently better than the spreads would imply.

3. I issued a mid-season report to the office so that everyone had the same data I did. Despite the overwhelming numerical evidence, some people continued to pick teams based on their personal biases and gut feelings.

4. The people who were setting the spreads could not possibly have been looking at the same numbers I was. If they had been, they would have been setting different spreads.

5. I won the end of season pool that year. (There was a weekly pool, but a percentage went toward the end of season pool).

6. The 49ers won the Superbowl.

Yes, it’s true that on any given day, any team can win or lose, but the fact was that there was data in those numbers that predicted with a high degree of certainty the outcome of future games. There’s no question that Joe Montana was magic on the football field. But the 49er defense was completely underrated for three seasons, and the odds makers took a strangely long time to adjust to the facts/data.

The Bill Walsh era transformed football in ways that I think still aren’t entirely recognized. I could see from watching my data  and from watching the games that the West Coast Offense (led by one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game) and what I will call the West Coast Defense (paid for by a very rich owner, Eddie DeBartelo) was essentially not beatable in the long run — until other teams got faster, bigger players (who were in better shape) and learned how to read offenses and defenses more quickly.

5 superbowls people. The 49ers won three superbowls pretty close together because it took about that long for other teams to understand they needed to play a different game and then acquire and train the coaching and athletic talent necessary to do that. The NFL made some rule changes that affected talent acquisition, so Walsh had to tweak his game, as it were. Boom. Two more superbowls.

Magic happens here.

Now watch me tie this into the Regency:

People gamble with their guts. And they do it in the face of mathematical evidence that their gut is wrong. Anyone who is at all interested in gathering information and looking at it over time will have an advantage, in a sport, in the long run, over someone who goes with their guts. You will take a few losses, but in the long run, you will be ahead of everyone who contaminates their picks with emotion.

The math is more like arithmetic, really. It’s not hard. You just assemble your numbers and let them tell the story. Even in the Regency, there just had to have been people who were geekish enough about some sport — like boxing –to do that sort of thing.

Interesting, no?

I have a cold and so this post is about …. Regency Remedies from my 1815 New Family Receipt Book.

General Rules for The Preservation of Health


1. Avoid, as much as possible, living near Church Yards.

check!

2. Valuable concise Rules for preserving health in Winter.

a. Keep the feet from wet.

check!

b. avoid too plentiful meals.

uh oh…

c. drink moderately warm and generous, but not inflaming liquors.

OK, this confuses me a little but I’m going to assume that my morning coffee overdose fits the bill.

d. Go not abroad without breakfast.

Hmm. I have my cereal when I get to work…

e. Shun the night air as you would the Plague.

I am indoors right now!

f. Let your house be kept from damps by warm fires.

I’m counting the AC. Is a fire ever anything but warm? I guess he means a fire big enough to warm the room.

Preventive of autumnal Rheumatisms

For the sake of bright and polished stoves, do not, when the weather is cold, refrain from making fires. There is not a more useful document for health to the inhabitants of this climate, than “Follow your feelings.”

I was baffled by this for some time. I finally realized this means, don’t avoid making fires because you want to keep your stove bright and polished.

I always follow my feelings, so SCORE!

Does anyone one else think the author worked on this and finally said, What the hell else can I say about not getting antumnal rheumatisms? oh fuck it. Follow your feelings!
 

My feelings right now are, how soon before the cold meds kick in?

As I’m working on finishing up Lucy and Thrale’s story (Sinclair Sisters, Book 2) I’m researching boxing and the like. I came across this interesting article: Hazlitt’s Prizefight Revisted, Pierce Egan and Jon Bee’s Boxiana-Style Perspective by David Snowdon posted at Romantic Textualities. Make a note, because it’s a fascinating article.

Which is not what my post is about. My post is about this book by John Bee:

Sportsman’s Slang, a New Dictionary of Terms used in the Affairs of The Turf, The Ring, The Chase, and The Cock-Pit; with Those of the Bon-Ton and The Varieties of Life, Forming the Completest and Authentic Lexicon Balatronicum et Macaronicum, particularly Adapted to the use of The Sporting World for elucidating Words and Phrases that are Necessarily, or Purposely, Rendered cramp, mutative, and unintelligible, outside their respective Spheres. Interspersed with Anecdotes and Whimsies, With Tart Quotations, And Rum-Ones; With Examples, Proofs, And Monitory Precepts Useful and Proper for Novices, Flats, and Yokels. Editio altera.

Let’s call it Sportsman’s Slang for short, eh?

Here’s a definition that answered a long-held question of mine (In the text, this is all one paragraph, but that’s too visually dense so I have added paragraphs for readability:

Bon ton: highflier Cyprians and those who run after them; from Bon–good easy–and ton or tone; the degree of tact and tension to be employed by modish people; frequently called ‘the ton’ only. Persons taking up good portions of their hours in seeking pleasure are of the Bon-ton, as stage actors and frequenters of play houses, visitors at watering-places officers &c. &c. See Haut ton.

In Paris they are both called Le bon genre. The appellation is much oftener applied than assumed. High life, particularly of whoredom: he who does not keep a girl or part of one, cannot be of the Bon ton; when he ceases, let him cut. Bon ton is included in haut-ton, and is French for that part of society who live at their ease, as to income and pursuits, whose manners are tonish, and who, like other divisions of society, employ terms of their own, which rather sparingly they engraft on the best King’s English. Mascul. et Fem.

Terms which denote the ton: ‘The go, the mode, or pink of the mode; bang-up, the prime of life, or all prime; the thing, the dash, and a dasher; quite the Varment–a four-in-hand, a whip, a very jarvy; a swell, a diamond of the first water.’ None can expect to attain perfection in all these unless he could obtain the same assistance that Faustus had, viz. Leviathan; and then he could not begrudge to meet the same end.

OK, so the phrase I have often wondered about is “Diamond of the First Water” as applied to a person. This is the first time I’ve seen the phrase in period literature. Mind you, here it’s used with a definite note of, shall we say ironic contempt? But here, we do not see the term specifically applied to a woman, and if it were, we might be excused for thinking Bee meant to imply a whore.

At any rate, I’ve wondered if the phrase might be a Heyer-ism, but if it is, she had some period authority for it. In fact, as I’ve been scanning through this, there are so many phrases I recognize from Heyer and her successors that I began to think she must have had this book in her library.

Are there phrases you’ve often wondered about?

Edited to Add!

There are dozens of uses of “Diamond of the First Water” with respect to jewelry and many that, in the same breath, mention giving that jewelry to a mistress who expects such a gift, but also many that apply the term to things that are not diamonds– and from there it’s really not hard to imagine applying the phrase to a woman. And, there are some. In the one below, we see a rather racy application of the term from dialog in a play which I include here because it made me laugh.

From Dissipation: A Comedy in Five Acts. As it is Performed at the Theatre-Royal, by Miles Peter Andrews, 1781.

EPHRAIM: What ish impossible! There ish your friend Lady Rentless that I wash more intimate with than you are Maisher Alderman, for all you are my Lord’s captain.

ALDERMAN: You intimate with my Lady? Why she’s the very pink of the mode, makes fashions for the whole town, gives entertainments to the whole town, sits up all night. Why, drill me, but she’s a diamond of the first water.

EPHRAIM: Aye; I love the diamond of the first water and have got the possession of most of them.

The last few days I’ve run across some totally awesome things and I am going to share them with you.

Awesome thing number 1:

A Linguist Explains What Old School British Accents Sounded Like

As a matter of fact, there are actually very good reasons to think that neither Shakespeare nor Ichabod should be speaking with what we currently think of as a “British” accent at all. What? Yes, really. Let me explain.

The recitation of the sonnet in the first video. Oh. My.

Awesome thing number 2:


The Hidden Wardrobe – a costume collection explored
From The National Trust. Go there. Look around.

Awesome thing number 3:

“Nuns Can’t Paint”: Sexism, Medieval Art, and Dudes on Mopeds

A reminder of just how deeply “isms” are embedded in our culture, in this case, sexism.

It’s one thing to argue that nuns make bad art because they’re not trained artists; because they’re hyper-emotional; because they’re women. It’s another to imply that at the moment they take their vows, the moment these women simultaneously renounced and calcified their femininity, medieval nuns lost all aesthetic taste.

Enjoy your Wednesday!

First, catching up with news!

Book News!

A Notorious Ruin, Book 2 of the Sinclair Sisters series is in final edits. I should have a cover shortly. It’s getting real, folks! Readers of this blog probably know there is boxing in this story. I like it. Lots and lots.

Alphas Unleashed, a SciFi and Paranormal Romance Anthology is out now! My story is Dead Drop which is set in the My Immortals series world. There are stories by SE Smith, Mina Khan, me, and Michele Callahan. Here are some buy links should you be so moved:

Alphas Unleashed

Print is on its way…

The Next Historical

In October, I’ll have a story in a Historical Romance Christmas Anthology, In The Duke’s Arms. That’s the name of a coaching inn in Nottinghamshire. Get it? It’s going to be awesome. My story has the duke. I started writing it yesterday. The authors are:

Grace Burrows
Miranda Neville
Shana Galen
Carolyn Jewel (that would be me!)

Research!! How much did stuff cost?

I have a very good set of references on this, but it never hurts to look around for more information. I need to pull out those sources and get reacquainted with them. Allow me to digress a bit before I get to the point.

You may or may not recall that in the course of some other research, I came across information about taxes. That research also uncovered information about the British lottery. As in, you could win a lot. Which got me thinking…

Years ago, I read a story by Balzac in which a very poor character had been saving up money to buy into the national lottery using a special run of numbers. At last, the character has enough money and entrusts the money and her run of numbers to someone else to purchase the ticket. And the number wins!!! Only the person spent the money on something else and never bought the ticket. Then there’s the Conrad story (Or was it Henry James?) where a man’s son is reckless in every way the father fears and has warned him against. Except the young man places a wager that will bankrupt the boy … and he wins, and on and on, with everything turning golden for this young man. Those two stories have been bumping around in my head for years.

And so, it’s early days and everything could change, but the heroine who will find herself In The Duke’s Arms (bwahahahahah!) is a very poor relation who wins the lottery and then buys a house in Nottinghamshire. Assuming this stays as the basic premise, as I was notebooking, I got to wondering how much she should win, and what her initial expenses would be, what it would cost her to live in her house, and how much she could routinely give away as charity without compromising her future. Jane Austen, it turns out, budgeted the equivalent of $600. I have only one source for that so consider it unconfirmed.

And that lead me to this fantastic site: The Price of a Loaf of Bread. Go there. Bookmark the site. Spend hours reading. The link convention there is weird: highlights instead of underlining, so when you see that, it’s a link to more great content.

After clicking around to various places and sites, the yearly amount spent on food per average person during the Regency, was about £3.5, subject to variations depending on the harvest. In calculating my heroine’s possible expenses I bumped that figure up a bit, but not by much. I have decided, preliminarily, that she will win £75,000 pounds and spend £20-25,000 on her house, outfitting it, buying new clothes, staffing up, etc. I know from seeing period advertisements that rather large estates were advertised for £8-16,000 pounds.

And now here is my question for you:

The scenario:
You are a poor female relation, 25-28 years old, living with relatives who are heedless of you. You are a chaperone to the pretty young daughter with a fortune. Everyone likes you, though, because you are genuinely nice (even though sometimes you wish you didn’t have to be.) You can look forward to a life of dependency, as you have no fortune and are only average in looks.

And then…

You buy a lottery ticket and you win. A lot. Besides an estate, what would you buy for yourself? What indulgences would you allow yourself?

Go.

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