We welcome–or rather, welcome back, since she’s a frequent visitor to the Riskies–Pam Rosenthal, acclaimed author of Almost a Gentleman and The Bookseller’s Daughter, whose next book THE SLIGHTEST PROVOCATION comes out this week.

Enter your comment or question for Pam (an intelligent, relevant one, please!) by Sunday, September 10 for a chance to win an autographed copy of The Slightest Provocation (winner to be chosen by the Riskies).

Pam Rosenthal’s writing is extraordinary. Fans of Laura Kinsale and Julia Ross will adore Rosenthal’s ability to humanize her characters–to render their emotions and reactions realistic to a fault, while maintaining a warmth that makes them sympathetic. Kit and Mary breathe. Louisa White, Fresh Fiction

Thoroughly grounded in history and threaded through with breathtaking sensuality, this intelligent, well-crafted romance takes readers on a fascinating journey and will appeal to those who appreciate a bit more history with an erotic, literary touch. Library Journal

Rosenthal crafts a tantalizing tale about a fiery love/hate relationship that defies the boundaries of love. Her strong characters’ fierce desires will leave readers panting. FOUR STARS Kathe Robin, Romantic Times

Pam, congratulations on the great reviews. Tell us what The Slightest Provocation is about.
It’s about a pair of lovers who eloped and then separated, when they were too young and feckless to know how to handle their youth, passions, and conflicting values. Since then, Mary has lived an independent life among poets and reformers, while Kit has learned discipline and responsibility in the army. Now that the war with Napoleon is over, they find themselves thrust back together.
The thrusting part (no surprise) works quite as well as it ever did. But the two of them still can’t agree on much else, especially disagreeing about the current political situation. The turning point is their discovery of a secret government plot, which forces them to question what’s truly important and to rethink their places in the world and with each other. The government plot really happened, by the way, and I find it quite fascinating.
So it’s about the varieties of power–erotic and otherwise. And also about love and the effects of time (inevitable, I suppose, since I’m not getting any younger myself).

What inspired you to write it?
First off, there was my curiosity–the urge that I share with you Riskies, to peek beyond the gates of the landed estate or the boundaries of Mayfair and St. James, to see what else was going on. And what I found, in the years after 1815, was a British Home Office most vexed by the parliamentary reform societies springing up throughout the country. The government responded to the situation by suspending habeas corpus, limiting the right to assemble, and sending a shady agent provocateur to foment rebellion and thus discredit the reformers. You can see it happening, if you read the Home Office correspondence in the British National Archives.
Added to which there’s my continuing interest, as an erotic writer, with point of view and the power of looking–which in this case led to a fascination with espionage. What’s wonderful to me is that while many things changed in the writing of this book, the founding image remains just as I first conceived it: an Englishman hidden in shadow, watching an Englishwoman, rather the worse for a hard day of travel, stepping out of a coach into an inn yard at Calais. I wondered if this was an image of the man’s power as a viewer, or of his powerlessness to stop looking. I was enthralled by the ambiguity, and what it implied for the volatility of an erotic relationship. And I think I must have gotten something of my obsession across, though, because an early reviewer (Historical Romance Writers–read the full review here) has said that she felt like a voyeur at Mary and Kit’s clandestine meetings.

Describe the challenge of using all that historical actuality, as you call it.
Whew! Well, besides getting it all right, you mean? (I’m adding an errata section to my web page, to deal with my errors as they’re revealed, by the way). But the ongoing problem was that I committed to following the true day-to-day chronology of events. Which meant I had to engineer the unfolding of the erotic connection to make sense in the context of Mary and Kit’s discoveries and varying interpretations. Since pacing is so critical in erotic writing, this set some serious constraints on what I could do. On the other hand, constraint, secrecy, and the nuances of understanding can be very sexy. One makes do.

Tell us a bit about the historical background/research you did.
Well, there were three parts to it. The early, difficult part was simply to unravel an intrigue that might have been hatched by Scooter Libbey, only in 1817. My husband Michael did yeoman labor in helping me put the pieces together, trucking home books from several libraries, finding the references to the Home Office documents, getting us permits to use the British Library and National Archives… but I did write the book, I promise.

The fun part was going to the Derbyshire countryside, where the agent provocateur made the most trouble–and where Mary and Kit grew up together. We spent a week tramping through fields and forests (my couple has lots of clandestine forest meetings)–I know, it’s a dirty job but someone has to do it. It’s a lovely area; we stayed at the village of Youlgrave (left), which is very near Chatsworth, and I highly recommend it. We got lost on our way to Pentrich, some twenty miles away, where some of the events would have happened. Which incident became story fodder–well, have you ever met a married couple who didn’t quarrel under such circumstances, especially if the guy refuses to ask directions?
But in some ways the most thrilling part was spent in the British Library and especially the National Archives, where we saw the correspondence between the Home Office, its agents and the magistrates. We were scared that we wouldn’t be able to decipher the old handwriting (though we didn’t admit that to each other until we were seated in front of the microfiche machines). But we could–not every word, but lots. And there it was, Lord Sidmouth, the Home Office Secretary, telling the magistrates not to arrest the provocateur. “A smoking gun,” Michael whispered.

How does this book take risks?
I don’t tell the erotic love story through a completely straightforward chronology. Kit and Mary’s earlier relationship–childhood, impetuous adolescence, elopement, early marriage, indiscretions, and betrayals–are rendered through memory fragments, breaking the surface of consciousness in that weird way that memory has. Which means that sometimes an incident will be told twice, from he says/she says contrasting points of view, and that events aren’t always recounted in chronological order. So I was concerned that I was asking a lot of my readers, to put it all together–though I do think there’s a coherent, compelling story to be found (and one that demands some compassion: this is a pair of lovers who hurt each other deeply when they were young and out of control). On the other hand, I’m a firm believer that a book comes alive through a reader’s active involvement in it. And since the story the reader has to piece together is a sexy, passionate one, I hoped that would be a motivation, and ultimately its own reward. And I think I might have pulled it off.

Today’s post is all about YOU. Why? Well, a) it’s Labor Day weekend and I’m feeling lazy (yes, lazier than usual!), and b) I’ve been cleaning out some of the many boxes of TBR books in my garage. And my hallway. And my office (which is actually a breakfast nook). Confession–I’m a booksale junkie. There isn’t a happier weekend of the year for me than when the Friends of the Library hold their annual sale. It’s heaven on earth–thousands of books piled into a warehouse and priced at .25, .50, and 1.00 for the really nice volumes. But thanks to my addiction to these blissful events, I have more books than I can ever read, and, I’m finding, lots of duplicate copies. I need to get rid of some.

So, here is the topic–dating. Or rather, the foolishness we mortals get up to when dating goes sour. In my cleaning-out, I’ve found a stash of old notes from high school, passed between my best friend and myself in AP English class. Many of these tearful letters detail the break-up with my boyfriend (my first “real” boyfriend–we dated all of six months–so the angst is extreme and very shrill). I tried many of the old break-up standbys. Hysterically tearful midnight phone calls, driving past his house, notes in his locker, etc etc. Yes, Gentle Reader, I even shoe-polished his car. Oh, the humanity!

Sadly, such things are not always confined to teenage girls who have read too many romances (remember the “dialing while intoxicated” scene in the movie Sideways?). I started wondering what our favorite lovelorn Regency ladies–such as, say, Caro Lamb, or Emma Hamilton, or Janet’s Perdita–would have done with such dangerous modern tools as the IM or text messaging. What delirious heights of romantic lunacy could they have scaled if, in addition to publicly burning poems and having meltdowns at Almack’s, they could drink too many Cosmos and start texting him about how he vowed he would marry her and now he has proved to be the most perfidious rogue in the world, and whhyyyyy didn’t he love her anymore???

Here is your assignment. Let us know what YOU think your favorite Regency lady would have done to get back at her faithless lover, if they were suddenly deposited in 2006. The best comment (or best 2 or 3–I really have a lot to get rid of) will receive a random packet of “vintage” Regencies from my booksale stash. Let the angst begin!

Many frequent romance readers have noticed how dissimilar a book’s hero and heroine is on the cover to the description within.

Readers may not be aware of this, but it seems that dark-haired heroes on book covers sell much better than blonds. So even if the hero’s hair is described within the book as flaxen as a field of corn on a summer day, the guy on the cover’s hair will look like, well, mine (By the way, there’s been such a rumpus because the newest James Bond, Daniel Craig, is blond. Personally, I wouldn’t care if he were bald if he did a better job than Timothy Dalton, a guy I find totally hot, but who sucked as Bond. But that’s just my opinion).

Now, I would never be so silly as to not buy a book because the hero’s hair is not to my liking, but I would be so silly to not like the hero if he is too short. I might be prejudiced from personal experience–prior to my 6’1″ husband, my boyfriend of six years was 5’3″ (I am 5’6″). But if the hero is anything less than six feet, it gives me pause.

I especially like tall, rangy, sinewy men, the kind whose veins pop out of their arms. Mm. Preferably with very little, if any, chest hair. Picky, I know, but I’m reading romance for escapist fantasy, and I don’t fantasize about 5’10” hairy-chested men. So sue me.

What are your deal-breakers when it comes to your heroes? Do you find yourself passing by the books with a blond on the cover? How about height? Chest hair? Muscles? Would you find a bald hero sexy (I would, especially if he looked like Jason Statham)?

Superficial Megan
www.meganframpton.com

A few months ago I blogged about a biography of Harriet Wilson that I was reading on my commute to work. My latest tart-on-the-tracks experience was with this biography of Mary Robinson by Paula Byrne–Perdita: The Literary, Theatrical, Scandalous Life of Mary Robinson.

It’s a pretty good biography, but you don’t get a sense of who Mary Robinson really was. There’s something enigmatic about her–she did an excellent cover-up job with the media and with her own writing. Even her biography is, acccording to Ms. Byrne, fairly typical for its time, full of omissions and inventions, always anxious to appear a nice, respectable girl. First and foremost an actress, she was adept at assuming roles–as a leader of fashion, a woman of politics (Fox was her lover for a time), an abandoned waif, child bride, tragic heroine. She began her theatrical career as a protegee of Garrick (although she probably wasn’t his mistress), before attracting the attention of the youthful Prince of Wales. He became besotted with her in the role of Perdita in The Winter’s Tale, referring to himself as Florizel, when she was a lovely young thing of 20 or 21, and he was as much of a lovely young thing as he was ever going to be at the age of 17.

The other love of her life was Colonel Banastre Tarleton, a hero of the American Revolutionary Wars, and not a particularly pleasant person (his nickname over here was “Butcher,” a dead give away). But there must have been something about him (maybe it was his third arm as the portrait suggests)–their affair lasted for years, with Mary, ever the publicity hound, submitting sentimental poems to newspapers at each breakup and reconciliation. They were the Posh and Becks, the Jennifer and Brad of their time, adored, imitated, extravagant leaders of fashion. Politically they were at opposite ends of the spectrum. She was a supporter of the abolitionist movement and in sympathy with the French revolution; Tarleton came from a rich Liverpool family and was pro-slavery and old school; nevertheless Mary wrote (some of) his political speeches and they co-authored a book together about his military experiences. I can’t help but think of Mary leaning over his shoulder correcting his spelling while he writes with his lips moving.

She gave up her stage career at the request of the Prince of Wales, who proved unreliable thereafter in his annuity payments, and after illness and disability from rheumatic fever ended her career as a courtesan, earned her living writing poetry and novels. Godwin and Coleridge were her friends and admired her work. She was rediscovered in academic circles in the 1990s though I have to admit the poetry copiously quoted in Ms. Byrne’s biography left me cold and/or slightly cringing at its sprightly archness.

I must admit she didn’t appeal to me as much as Harriet Wilson, but I enjoyed this biography–there are some great descriptions of clothes and of late eighteenth-century London; it’s just a pity that Mary is presented mostly as a series of public personae. And that’s the way she would have liked it…here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson…

As I mentioned earlier, I just enjoyed the most relaxing vacation. One of the best parts was being able to catch up on a number of books I’ve been wanting to read, some of them romance classics in the I’m-ashamed-to-admit-I-haven’t-read-that category.

I started out with our own Diane’s THE MARRIAGE BARGAIN. It’s a classic Regency romance, beautifully written (no surprise there!) with heartfelt passion and intriguing secondary characters who are clearly heroes-in-waiting.

Having loved MISS WONDERFUL, I was eager to read Loretta Chase’s MR. IMPOSSIBLE and I wasn’t disappointed. It’s set in Regency Egypt (how’s that for different?), the characters are adorable, the dialogue witty, classic Loretta Chase. Now LORD PERFECT is beckoning from the TBR shelf.

On the recommendation of one of my CPs, I tried BLISS by Judy Cuevas (who more recently writes as Judith Ivory). This book is so different and so risky. It’s set mostly in France, in 1903, a time period one rarely sees in historical romance. The hero is a blocked artist, an ether addict and impotent. The heroine seems–at first glance–like a rather superficial adventuress. Cuevas/Ivory is brilliant enough to bring out layers and layers of these characters and pull it all off. It’s beautiful.

The next book I read was MY SWEET FOLLY by Laura Kinsale. First let me say (for anyone who doesn’t know this already) that she is and always will be one of my favorite authors. However, I have to agree with other readers who thought the prologue was beautiful and the rest of the book disappointing in comparison. According to her website, Laura wrote this book during the worst of her battle with her muse and doesn’t remember much of it. Without knowing the circumstances it’s hard to say if anything could have helped, but I wish that somehow she’d had the chance to rest, relax, regroup, whatever she needed to work it out. Anyway, Laura Kinsale on autopilot is still better than many authors. And that prologue is a gem.

The last book I picked up was THE PROPOSITION by Judith Ivory (aka Judy Cuevas). It’s her RITA-winning Victorian historical featuring a hero that’s a rat-catcher, of all things. I am in awe. I am adding all her backlist books to my TBR list (sigh). I’m delighted to see that there’s a new Judith Ivory coming out in October, ANGEL IN A RED DRESS.

So here I am, a week away from my kids heading back to school. Not only have I enjoyed this self-indulgent binge on good romances, I am feeling totally stoked to get back to my own works-in-progress!

So has anyone else read these books? What did you think? Have you read anything else noteworthy lately? I’m always up for adding some more books to that endless TBR list!

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