Back to Top

Do we all have too many books?

And why is it so hard to give up books that you know you probably won’t read again but you like to know are there, rather like a print security blanket? And then there’s the other category of books that are there because you know you’ll re-read them, again and again. But the odd thing is that whenever I reach for one of those, I always run through an inventory of things I don’t like about the book first rather than an inventory of things I do like about it.

And these can include books about which I’d claim in a heartbeat are my favorites.

For instance, Persuasion. What’s not to like? Yet, here, off the top of my head, are the reasons I don’t want to read it.

  1. It always seems to be raining. (I know it’s not, but that’s the impression I have.)
  2. The silly Musgrave girls.
  3. The tedious poetry-loving Captain. Smack him.
  4. Most of the men are idiots.
  5. I’ve read it far too many times before so there won’t be any surprises.
  6. A cast of dozens, most of whose names I can’t remember.
  7. Far too many walks on which awful things happen.
  8. Anne rolls over and takes it far too much instead of lashing Wentworth with a handful of brambles and/or stinging nettles while he makes snide comments directed at her on the walk with the silly girls.
  9. Why don’t I just watch the video (the best Austen adaption, imo).
  10. I don’t know where the video is, but I do know where the book is, so…

and so on. Yet it’s a book I love, and I know I’ll love again when I re-read it, even though I go into it thinking only of its annoyances. Maybe that’s a characteristic of a book you’ll want to read over and over, because it has imperfections that you can’t, ever, really figure out. I’d say most of my favorite books fall into this category.

How about you? What are your favorite read-agains?

Sign up for my newsletter at www.janetmullany.com and I’ll send you one of my short stories!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 11 Replies

From MS Encarta:
“Hydra (mythology), in Greek mythology, nine-headed monster that dwelled in a marsh near Lerna, Greece. A menace to all of Árgos, it had fatally poisonous breath and when one head was severed, grew two in its place; its central head was immortal. Hercules, sent to kill the serpent as the second of his 12 labors, succeeded in slaying it by burning off the eight mortal heads and burying the ninth, immortal head under a huge rock. The term hydra is commonly applied to any complex situation or problem that continually poses compounded difficulties.”

This is a pretty good description of how I’m feeling right now about researching my current mess-in-progress.

First, I actually do quite a bit of research ahead of time. This story has a balloonist hero so I read several books on the history of ballooning before I even started.

However, my plots are never that clear at the beginning so all sorts of questions crop up in the course of the writing. For instance, I hadn’t realized at the start that this hero was also an ex-soldier. Another area of research…sigh…but also a good excuse for viewing more Sharpe movies. 🙂

But I try not to get side-tracked by research (easy to do with Sharpe!) so usually I just put in notes to myself for what to look up later. This week, since my kids are off school and it’s hard to get into scene-writing, I have started to look at all those notes and tackle some of them.

And I’m really starting to feel overwhelmed! In the course of the drafting I’ve learned that this hero is not only an soldier but he’s also an army brat. Now I have to figure out not only where he’s been and what he’s done but also where and how his father might have served. Then there are a host of things about the heroine, her background and her family that keep cropping up. I need to study up on all sorts of diverse subjects from the Clapham sect to the mating habits of British birds. Yikes!

It makes me start wondering why I keep getting myself into these messes. When these ideas come to me, are they the true whisperings of my muse or just some sort of literary death wish???

Some authors blithely write bestsellers without checking basic facts and their readers don’t mind a bit. Oh well, I can’t do that (though I make no claims to perfection in my research). The real reason I do it is because I can’t write with confidence otherwise. When I’ve exhausted the resources of the local university library, when I’ve pulsed the helpful members of The Beau Monde without getting a definitive reply, then and only then do I feel safe in just “making it up.”

So, my fellow writers, have you ever had a manuscript turn into this sort of monster? Have you found any ways to tame it? When do you fling up your hands and just make it up?

Dear readers, do all these historical details really add to your pleasure in a story? Please tell me they do!

Elena 🙂
www.elenagreene.com

Siddons by Reynolds

http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/criticism/hazlittw_charsp/charsp_titlepage.html

THE WINTER’S TALE is one of the best-acting of our author’s plays. We remember seeing it with great pleasure many years ago. It was on the night that King took leave of the stage, when he and Mrs. Jordan played together in the after-piece of the Wedding-day. Nothing could go off with more eclat, with more spirit, and grandeur of effect. Mrs. Siddons played Hermione, and in the last scene acted the painted statue to the life–with true monumental dignity and noble passion; Mr. Kemble, in Leontes, worked himself up into a very fine classical phrensy; and Bannister, as Autolycus, roared as loud for pity as a sturdy beggar could do who felt none of the pain he counterfeited, and was sound of wind and limb. We shall never see these parts so acted again; or if we did, it would be in vain. Actors grow old, or no longer surprise us by their novelty. But true poetry, like nature, is always young; and we still read the courtship of Florizel and Perdita, as we welcome the return of spring, with the same feelings as ever.

Here are some snippets that I found particularly amusing, from various theatre reviews that Hazlitt wrote during the Regency…

Examiner, May 5, 1816

Why they put Mr. Kemble into the part of Sir Giles Overreach, at Covent Garden Theatre, we cannot conceive: we should suppose he would not put himself there. Malvolio, though cross-gartered, did not set himself in the stocks.

No doubt, it is the managers’ doing, who by rope-dancing, fire-works, play-bill puffs, and by every kind of quackery, seem determined to fill their pockets for the present, and disgust the public in the end, if the public were an animal capable of being disgusted by quackery.

(The gentleman pictured above is John Philip Kemble, the powerful actor/manager. His whole family acted, included his sister, Mrs. Siddons, and his brothers, Charles and Stephen Kemble.)

Examiner, October 13, 1816

The town has been entertained this week by seeing Mr. Stephen Kemble in the part of Sir John Falstaff, as they were formerly with seeing Mr. Lambert in his own person.

We see no more reason why Mr. Stephen Kemble should play Falstaff, than why Louis XVIII is qualified to fill a throne, because he is fat and belongs to a particular family. Every fat man cannot represent a great man.

(The gentleman pictured here is Stephen Kemble, and he was indeed the least admired of the Kembles!)

Champion, January 8, 1815

In going to see Mr. Kean in any new character, we do not go in the expectation of seeing either a perfect actor or perfect acting; because this is what we have not yet seen, either in him or in anyone else. But we go to see (what he never disappoints us in) great spirit, ingenuity, and originality given to the text in general, and an energy and depth of passion given to certain scenes and passages, which we should in vain look for from any other actor on the stage…

His Romeo had nothing of the lover in it. We never saw anything less ardent or less voluptuous. In the balcony scene in particular, he was cold, tame and unimpressive… He stood like a statue of lead.

(The third picture, of course, is of Edmund Kean!)

Of the reviews Hazlitt did of Kean, this was the least flattering one that I’ve come across. He did seem to admire him very much, and be rather more impatient with the Kembles!

So — if you were magically transported back to the Regency, and could see anything (or anyone) at the theatre that you wished, what (or who) would it be? Or would you spend more time looking at the theatre or the audience?

Cara
Cara King, author of MY LADY GAMESTER — which contains several scenes at Covent Garden Theatre, complete with elephant

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 11 Replies
Follow
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join millions of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com