Back to Top

Category: Risky Regencies


Last year I read Discipline by Mary Brunton (1778-1818). Mary was a Scottish novelist, a contemporary of Jane Austen, whose life, like Austen’s, was cut short by her early death–in childbirth for Brunton. She left us just 3 books, one Emmeline, unfinished.

Self Control, her first published novel was popular and mentioned in Austen’s letters, albeit with less than admiration.

I read Discipline because someone somewhere said that it had a good description of a Regency era ball. It did. The London part of the story was very interesting. The characters had a great deal more freedom than we ever give our heroines. The book’s plot wandered, but there was a lot going on in it. It tells the story of a wealthy but impetuous young woman whose folly and happenstance cause her to descend into poverty and despair, until she reforms her ways and vows to live a disciplined and moral life.

In some ways the book is difficult to slog through. In today’s fiction-world it would be in for some extreme tightening, but Brunton’s voice is an authentic voice of the past, and, to me, it felt like a peek into the real Regency world. One of the things I liked was that Brunton’s characters misbehaved in a grand way. She did not treat their scandals with the delicacy that Jane Austen achieved, but plopped the scandals on the page, front and center. I can just see a Regency teenage girl sneaking her mother’s copy of Discipline and relishing it, like we relished those first romance novels pilfered from our own mothers’ bookshelves.

Here is a very nice piece about Mary Brunton. http://www.chawton.org/biography.php?AuthorID=49

And here is a link to what Jane Austen said of Brunton’s Self Control, complete with links to the complete text of Discipline, Self-Control and Emmeline, her unfinished manuscript.
http://labrocca.com/marybrunton/

Has anyone read Mary Brunton?
What other novels popular in our Regency time period do you recommend, besides Austen, that is?
What romance novel did you sneak from your mother’s bookshelf?

Cheers!


Well, after a great Halloween where I got to run around dressed as a pirate and eat far too many miniature Kit Kat bars (extra hours on the treadmill now, ugh!), I thought it’s time to Get Serious. I’ve been reading a great book called The Things that Matter: What Seven Classic Novels Have to Say About the Stages of Life by Edward Mendelson (a professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia). It’s not a super-long book, only about 240 pages, but full of fascinating ideas.

For the record, the 7 books are Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights, Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, George Eliot’s Middlemarch, and three by Virginia Woolfe–Mrs. Dalloway, To The Lighthouse, Between the Acts. I’m not going to go over all of them–that would make this post waaaay too long! I just want to touch on a few points he makes about Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre that I found interesting, and also think apply well to our modern romance genre.

I love both these books, in totally different ways. As Mendelson points out, Emily and Charlotte Bronte grew up in the same family, the same environment, had almost identical educations, and yet “everything that Wuthering Heights says about childhood, growth, and adulthood is contradicted by Jane Eyre.” I read these books first when I was very young (about 9 or 10), and even I could discern something of this difference. I adored Jane Eye, and when I got to the end I just started it all over again! I didn’t love or understand Wuthering Heights–I was too young for it then. It was only later, when I re-read it and could see the complex narrative structure and the layers of the even more complex characterization, that I understood what a masterpiece it was. I still prefer Jane Eyre in some ways, but Wuthering Heights is also a favorite.

Emily Bronte was one of the great visionaries of the Romantic era (and a deeply, fascinatingly weird person!). She followed her own inner belief system built on nature and unity that is so very strong in Wuthering Heights. Heathcliff and Catherine are passionately in love, but it’s not the passion of mere sexual desire–in fact, they show no interest in the other’s sex lives at all. What they seek is Unity, to literally BE each other. Mendelson states that Wuthering Heights is about that Unity; Jane Eye is about Equality. Mendelson writes, “Equality, in contrast (to unity), is a difficult but plausible goal, with profound emotional and ethical meaning in both the private world and the public one.”

I think most of our modern romance novels share this goal and theme of Equality. The hero and heroine face challenges (much as Jane and Rochester did) that in the end put them on an equal footing as they begin their married lives, even if he’s the duke and she’s the vicar’s bluestocking daughter. Perhaps only in some paranormals is there more of that Wuthering Heights-ish theme of Unity. of true soulmates. It’s a fascinating idea.

My question (or questions) to you are: Which do you prefer–Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights? Do you agree with theses concepts of Unity vs. Equality? Can you think of any romances where these would apply (I’d love to hear more about this!)? Now, I’m off to re-read some Bronte…


Okay, this is ridiculous. I came over here today and wondered if today’s post-er had put her post up. I always like reading what my fellow Riskies have to say, even if I forget to comment (note to self: Stop being so damn reticent).

And then I remembered TODAY’S POST-ER IS ME!

Oy.

I’ve had some personal drama lately, having to do with a friend, thank goodness, not me, so I’ve forgotten what day it is. I am waiting for my agent to send me notes on my Regency-set historical, but I’ve also been dreading seeing the email in my inbox, because that’ll mean I have to knuckle down and do the revisions. Ack. We had Halloween, and my mother-in-law was in town, which means I have a cleaner house, but a more stressed brain, and it’s gotten colder, then warmer, then colder–honestly, I’m surprised I actually remembered Friday was my day.

So let’s turn the tables and have YOU guys supply the meat of the post, if you don’t mind:

What are you reading now?
What’s the last book you decided not to finish (if you don’t want to name names, that’s fine.)
What periods other than the Regency do you indulge in?
Which author have you glommed recently?
Have you started thinking about Christmas yet, or are you just surprised it’s November already?
Will you take your son to see Flushed Away just because Hugh Jackman does the voice?

Thanks, and meanwhile, I’ll WAIT here for your answers. Happy Friday!

Megan
www.meganframpton.com

No, not for Hallowe’en!

I spoke at a workshop a few weeks ago with some other historical writers, and when we asked for questions, a woman asked this:

If I’d lived two hundred years ago, what would I be?
Chances are, we told her, you wouldn’t be a member of the aristocracy, or own land or wealth. If you lived in America, more than likely you’d be someone’s property. Adam Hochschild, author of Bury The Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves calculates that at the beginning of the English abolitionist movement, approximately two-thirds of the world’s population was in some form of slavery or bondage.

So…you’re living in England during the Regency. You’re not Lady Something or the Hon. Miss Something-Else. You’re not even a gentleman’s daughter. You have to earn a living.
If you were born in the country, you might be able to stay there–always assuming you weren’t forced out by foreclosure–or you might seek a job in a mill or factory in one of the rapidly growing industrial cities.

Or, you might go into service. Here’s another amazing statistic: in the eighteenth century, one-third of all the population (with the exception of the aristocracy) was in service at some time in their lives—usually until their mid-twenties. About one-third of London’s population were servants. Some people, working in the houses of the rich, rose in the ranks to enter the servant elite as butler, housekeeper, or lady’s maid; even though this illustration is from the mid-eighteenth century, you can see how well-dressed this lady’s maid is. Servants earned room and board, plus “perks”—for a ladies maid or valet, cast-off clothing they could wear or sell—or “vails,” tips from visitors usually given to footmen. The maidservant illustration is from the mid-nineteenth century, but gives you an idea of what it was like being at the beck and call of a bell, and negotiating stairs in a long skirt, possibly carrying something worse than a tea service. Becoming a servant for a few years gave you upward mobility; hopefully you’d have saved enough to leave, marry, and own your own business—a shop, maybe—and have a servant or two of your own.

But life was uncertain and who knows where you might end up (another interesting statistic, although one I find difficult to believe: one third of the female population of London during the nineteenth century were prostitutes). You might find yourself reviewed in Harris’s List of Covent Garden Ladies, a sort of Michelin Guide to whores for the discerning gentleman.

Your best bet, really, as we told the woman smart enough to ask this interesting question, was to marry as well as you could.

So what what would you be?

Janet

Well, I finished the costumes and they were fantastic if I say so myself. (My kids had decided to “be” Felicity and Elizabeth, the Revolutionary War era American Girls, long gowns, lace, caps and all, of course with the historically accurate Velcro closures.) The cookies were baked, class parties held, pumpkins carved and chocolate shared.

Now that Halloween motherly duties are over, I’m as ready as I’ll ever be for the NaNoWriMo plunge. It’s the first day and I’m one of about 70,000 writers participating in the challenge to write at least 50,000 words of a novel by Dec 1.

Most of the WriMos are unpublished. Many are taking their very first shot at novel writing. I commend these newbies, because of all the people who say they’d like to write a novel someday, these brave souls have actually defined “someday” as TODAY.

I didn’t find it surprising to hear that the success rate in past challenges has been about 17%. My guess is that some participants get crushed by reality early on. I know there are other “failures” who fell short of the goal but still wrote considerable chunks. Even getting halfway is an achievement. 25,000 words equals about 100 pages of manuscript. Even if it needs major revisions, this isn’t bad for a month’s work!

I’m participating for a special reason of my own. After six books, I’ve found it increasingly difficult to tackle first drafts. I have put more pressure on myself to be brilliant, to be efficient, with the result that I self-censor too much. I’ve chosen not to follow up on intriguing ideas because I couldn’t understand the characters’ motivations, or they seemed historically implausible (not impossible), or because I was afraid readers wouldn’t like them, etc… The problem is, if you cut them off too many times, the girls in the basement (or the subconscious mind, or the muse, or whatever you call the dark, strange place where ideas come from) go on strike.

So for this month, I’m going to ignore all those worries and trust that strange dark place. I’m going to write what I feel like, for pleasure and for wordcount. I’m going to trust that if I write a scene I love, I’ll be able to figure out how to make it fit believably into a story. I’m going to relinquish control to the girls in the basement. Fly on the bat’s back and trust that I won’t fall.

Wish me luck!

Elena
LADY DEARING’S MASQUERADE, RT Reviewers’ Choice, Best Regency Romance of 2005
www.elenagreene.com

P.S. The picture here is “Ariel on a Bat’s Back” by Henry Singleton, first exhibited in 1819, from the Tate.

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