Back to Top

So this weekend there was a little awards show called The Oscars (you might have heard of it??). And as usual I stayed up far too late, eating too much chocolate and drinking wine because I just can’t give up until I see what took Best Picture. This year was good because I actually really enjoyed several of the movies (I adored The Artist, loved Midnight in Paris, admired Tree of Life, and thought The Descendants was pretty good…), and Jean DuJardin is my new French boyfriend.

I also loved many of the gowns! It seemed like an especially good fashion year…

Some of my favorites:


Michelle Williams

Natalie Portman (I wanted to steal this immediately!)

Gwyneth Paltrow (liked it better without the cape, but you know, yay for red carpet capes!)

Rooney Mara (no-one else could have pulled this off, but I love her weird, chilly style)


Penelope Cruz


Jessica Chastain (she is so beautiful and yet so iffy on the rc–I’m glad she pulled it off when it counted most!)

And I didn’t especially like Emma Stone’s dress (I was convinced I had seen her in something just like this before, but it turned out it was Nicole Kidman…), but she was by far the most entertaining thing in a very long evening (except for the Christopher Guest faux “Wizard of Oz” test group), and I just love her…


There wasn’t anyone I totally hated, but I do think Berenice Bejo could have done a lot better…


And what was up with Angelina Jolie and her crazy leg?? The dress was nice, though she was swimming in it, but I could not figure out what was with the weird posing…

I also found out I got my own award–though I don’t get a couture gown with it! The Shy Duchess won Cataromance’s Best Harlequin Historical of 2011…(See the list of winners here…)

Who were your favorite fashionistas at the Oscars this year? Who was your least favorite??

Last night my local PBS station aired a special hailing the origin and rise of the costume drama, as done by British television and introduced to American audiences as Masterpiece Theater or Great Performances. The documentary was aired as a special during the fund-raising, so your own PBS station might not have it, and I haven’t checked to see if it is on Netflix. (The Baltimore PBS station aired an Albert Hall concert version of Phantom of the Opera that I missed except for the end, but that is another story…)

The documentary lists the 1967 black and white version of The Forsythe Saga as the beginning of costume drama on TV. I confess, I did not watch this show. I didn’t catch up until I, Claudius and the Poldark Series.

I, Claudius was a ground-breaker in the subject matter that was part of the story, the violence (shown off-stage) and incest (suggested in the BBC version but cut from the American version). I remember being totally hooked on that series.

Poldark actually led to naming our daughter, except we didn’t go through with it. My husband and I really liked the name Morwenna, but we feared it was too strange for an American little girl. Instead we picked a name we heard on Rockford Files, which turned out to be one of the most popular girls names of the year. My daughter wishes we’d named her Morwenna, because then she could have been called “Mo.” (I would have called her “Wenna.”)

Another ground-breaker was Brideshead Revisited, for its depiction of a homosexual relationship between two men. I confess, I did not realize that part of the story. I thought it was just a friendship. Somehow now it becomes even more poignant. It was also ground-breaking in that it was entirely filmed on location.

Moll Flanders was mentioned as a daring sexual romp, another one I missed.

Cranford had the distinction of showing a town where most of the inhabitants were women. Jewel in the Crown showed a part of British history that needed apology.

But one costume drama “changed everything.” The seminal scene depicted one muslin-shirted man who dove into a pond to cool off after a hard day’s ride. Colin Firth striding across the lawn in a wet, semi-transparent shirt, in the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice was a moment none of us will ever forget!

What is your favorite costume drama? Is there a sleeper that you remember fondly?

Thursday at Diane’s Blog I’ll talk about my writers weekend at Inn Boonsboro.

Posted in TV and Film | Tagged | 4 Replies

We are back with Julia Ross for Part 2 of her interview. Click here to read Part 1.

Q. Your writing style has been described as a “combination of lyricism and sensuality … on par with Jo Beverley’s” (Booklist). How do you achieve this effect?

I’m very flattered to be compared to Jo, because I’ve always loved her writing. If reviewers or readers see some similarities between us, though, it’s probably because we were both growing up in England at about the same time and were exposed to many of the same influences. My writing style is exactly what comes naturally. I care very much about language and polish every sentence until it sounds “right” — the rhythm and feeling and choice of words — plus I try to delve deeply into my characters’ hearts and minds, so I write in terms of what matters to them, not to me. In the end my approach is very intuitive, and though many of Jo’s fans love my books and vice versa, that’s not always the case, since each book is unique.

Q. The heroine of GAMES OF PLEASURE is a courtesan, definitely a risky heroine. Can you tell us more about how you came up with this character?

All of my historical heroines have tended to be a little — or a lot — unusual, I think. My very first (in ILLUSION) was an English lady who’d been trained as a concubine while captive in a harem in India, and returned to Regency England with a gold ring in her nostril. Frances was expert in the erotic techniques of the Kama Sutra, but — since not even a maharajah always sampled every concubine that he owned — she was also a virgin, and that’s what made her so interesting.

And Miracle, sought-after courtesan to the Regency aristocracy? By the time I finished NIGHT OF SIN (with my brave Dissenter heroine, Anne Marsh) I knew that Jack’s brother, Lord Ryderbourne, had to have his own book. As a duke’s heir, Ryder was sexy and powerful and an obvious hero, yet he was also weighed down by duty and strangely innocent. Since romance thrives on tension, the heroine needed to present him with a challenge — and a professional courtesan was about as far from Ryder’s expectations as was possible. Though I must admit that when Ryder first plunged his horse into the ocean to save Miracle from drowning, I had no idea what she’d been doing for a living, or why she was unconscious and half-naked in a boat.

However, I already knew who Ryder was from NIGHT OF SIN. My hero always really drives the story, and if he’s complex and tortured, so much the better! Though Ryder isn’t as obviously dark and troubled as his brother Jack, it’s only because he’s less self-aware. So once I knew her real past, I was fascinated by how Miracle would react to a man like Ryder, and how he’d react to her, especially once he knew the truth.

Yet in spite of her pragmatic attitude to men and sex, I honestly didn’t think of Miracle in terms of risk. She’s honorable and brave and worthy of a hero’s heart, and she’s never been simply promiscuous. After all, there are plenty of rakes in romance who abandon their mistresses at the start of the story when they meet the heroine. It would reflect a very cruel double standard if those women were always villains, or doomed to unhappiness, wouldn’t it? So why not have a brilliant, sexually knowledgeable heroine like Miracle seduce a gorgeous guy like Ryder, and then overcome all the odds to eventually find happiness with him?

Q. What do you see as some of the greatest creative risks you’ve taken in your career? Has there ever been anything an editor asked you to remove or tone down? Anything readers had problems with?

To judge a character or plot-element as a “risk” implies that the author has accepted a certain set of expectations that she’s consciously breaking, and that’s simply not the way that I write. Though it might have been “safer” to write simpler or less sophisticated stories, all of my editors so far have encouraged me to go wherever the story demands, whether it’s “different” or not, and no editor has ever asked me to tone down a thing. On the contrary, my editors repeatedly tell me that my unique voice and approach is what they love most about my books. There’s great freedom in that, but it can also be a little intimidating at times!

As for readers having problems, several years ago I lost some of my early Regency readers, who didn’t like the explicit sensuality of my long historicals and let me know all about it. Yet only the kindest of readers seem to contact me these days. My fans sometimes point out little errors that might have crept in, but usually they’re incredibly generous with their praise, which always touches me to the heart.

Beginning every new book is incredibly tough for me, and it’s often at some moment of great self-doubt that I’ll receive a wonderful e-mail from a new fan. For example, a professional romance reviewer in Germany just e-mailed to tell me that she’d become so caught up in THE SEDUCTION that she was in danger of falling behind on her job. She’d already ordered copies of all of my titles still in print and was searching out my backlist, as well. I feel very humbled to get an e-mail like that, but it also helps to inspire me to keep writing.

Meanwhile, I’m absolutely thrilled that my fans have enabled Berkley to put the words “bestselling author” on my covers, and I owe them a huge debt of thanks. THANK YOU, READERS!! On the other hand, my stories are definitely not for everyone, so I don’t troll the Internet looking for negative comments from readers who prefer a different style. One of the greatest attributes of romance is that there’s enough variety to suit all of us, so no author needs to please every reader, and it’s far better that way.

Q. We hear you just completed the manuscript for your next book. Congratulations! Can you tell us more about it?

CLANDESTINE will be released in Berkley trade paperback in November with some very sensuous orchids and a lovely, iridescent barn swallow on the cover. It’s the third book in the Wyldshay trilogy, and opens when Guy Devoran — Jack and Ryder’s glamorous cousin — is accosted in a London bookstore by a redheaded schoolteacher from Bath. I had no idea when I began this story that Guy was hiding dark secrets throughout NIGHT OF SIN and GAMES OF PLEASURE — secrets he simply must keep from Sarah Callaway, even when he agrees to help her find her missing cousin. The cover art and a tiny teaser are already up on my web site at www.juliaross.net and I’ll be adding more between now and November. So please stay tuned!

Q. What are you planning to work on next?

I don’t plan very far ahead, and I always take off a little time between books to refill the well, so at the moment I really have no clue what the next story will be, or even when or where it might take place. I’m going to England again very soon — I go every year to explore new locations and ideas — so I trust that another “burning idea” will have grabbed me by the time I get back! Meanwhile, I hope I can find the time to put some photos up on my web site of places in Britain that helped to inspire scenes in previous books — like bluebell woods and coast paths — though that probably won’t happen for several more weeks. Which leads me once again to thank my readers for always being so patient with me. Including my necessary “dream time,” it takes me a solid year to write a book, so there’s not a lot of spare time left over. Thanks again, Risky Regencies!

Posted in Interviews | Tagged | 2 Replies


The last couple of weeks, I’ve posted on the lives of ladies-in-waiting at Court. This week, I decided to take a slightly different angle, and explore the history of another segment of female society–courtesans. (Plus, it’s a very hot day here, in the 90s, and I’m feeling very, very lazy. Just reading Megan’s post from yesterday is all the Literature I can take in right now! So I pulled up a short article I wrote for the “Regency Reader” using research from my book LADY MIDNIGHT. I have a lot more info in my notes–if anyone wants to hear more, just email me!). Here’s the article:

“A great courtesan was no mere prostitute. She was highly cultured, witty, charming, elegant, companion to the great men of her day. According to Susan Griffin, the greatest distinction between a prostitute and a courtesan was that courtesans were “personages”–celebrities who were written about in the journals and papers of their day, gossiped about for their fashions and love affairs, arbiters of tastes and trends. The greatest courtesan could use her body and her brains to enjoy the benefits of marriage, such as companionship, property, and financial stability, without the social constraints and loss of independence. It was not all positive, of course. There was little companionship with other women, and when romance soured there could be dire financial repercussions, and even physical revenge (not to mention the threat of disease). But it was often the best of a very narrow set of options.

In English polite society of the 18th and early 19th centuries, arranged marriage was the norm–husbands and even wives had great freedom in seeking their affections elsewhere, provided there were proper heirs and the partners were discreet. “One exists with one’s husband–one LIVES with one’s lover,” says the Marquise de Vandenesse in Balzac’s “Une fille d’Eve.” Thus the courtesan played a very important role in this period–not “received” in polite society, but with her own important world, the demi-monde, with its own society, etiquette, and protocol. She was paid for her personality and style, her ability to attract attention and celebrity. To show her off was a sign of prestige. To stay at the top of her game, she had to be witty, smart, independent, and charismatic, for mere prettiness was common, and soon faded.

The most famous courtesan of her day was Harriette Wilson, one of five sisters who became well-known members of the demi-rep. She was not beautiful, but she was very witty and fashionable. She and her sisters showed off in their own opera box (200 gineas a year!) and in their fancy carriages in Hyde Park. For men, to be introduced to her was the height of social success. But her stylish clothes and household were very expensive, and she fell into a debt and a bad relationship with a swindler named Rochfort (beware of men named after stinky cheeses). By the end of her career, she was in poverty in Paris, and undertook to write her Memoirs to raise some needed cash.

The Memoirs were published in twelve parts between January and April 1825, and were an immediate sensation. At the end of each installment was an advertisement giving the names of people mentioned in the next part, giving them time to buy themselves out if they hadn’t already. Harriette made about 10,000 pounds, but most of it was soon squandered by Stink Cheese Man, and she died in complete poverty on the Continent in 1845.”

Here are a few books I found helpful (and very interesting!);
Harriette Wilson’s Memoirs (my version was edited by Leslie Blanche and published in 2003)
Paula Byrne’s “Perdita” (about Prinny’s first love, actress Mary Robinson)
James Davidson’s “Courtesans and Fishcakes” (way out of “our” era, it’s about ancient Greece, but great)
Susan Griffin’s “The Book of the Courtesans”
Katie Hickman’s “Courtesans: Money, Sex and Fame in the 19th Century”
Valerie Grosvenor Myer’s “Harriette Wilson: Lady of Pleasure”
Nickie Roberts’ “Whores in History”
Margaret Rosenthal’s “The Honest Courtesan: The Life of Veronica Franco” (another one out of our period, but a terrific read, and the basis for the fab movie “Dangerous Beauty”)
Francis Wilson’s “The Courtesan’s Revenge: Harriette Wilson, the Woman Who Blackmailed the King”

I asked in my last article if you would be a good lady-in-waiting–now for something much more fun. 🙂 Would you have been a good courtesan???

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