Back to Top

Tag Archives: Uncategorized

Happy week after Christmas, everyone! How was your holiday? The weather here was frightful, but indoors was delightful. Lots of Christmas candy and Prosecco, along with the Say Yes to the Dress marathon on TLC (amazing how those dresses all look just alike after a while, yet everyone argues bitterly about them), and episodes from season one of Legend of the Seeker (thanks to the gift of the DVD set!). Now I have to get back to yoga, eating semi-healthy, and finishing the WIP. First a look back–and forward.

Forward: If you got your February issue of RT, you may notice my first Laurel McKee book, Countess of Scandal, is not reviewed therein. It seems there was some sort of snafu; hopefully we will see it in March. In the meantime, I did get my very first review, yay!!! From Romance Reviews: “This was an exciting, suspenseful, and very passionate story. Loved it and very much look forward to the next in this series. Interesting history lesson and a good backdrop for a first-class love story. Four checks!” (Sorry for the bragging interlude–I am soooo excited about this book, I can’t contain it!)

And now back, to the year that was 2009! It was a very good reading year indeed, at least for me. As usual, I didn’t get to read much fiction, except as vacation treats, but what I read was excellent. I loved how Carolyn’s Indiscreet blended a vivid, exotic setting with deep, complex emotions and intriguing characters, and how Diane brought a very realistic aspect to post-war trauma and the horrors of battle to Gallant Officer, Forbidden Lady. I just finished Gail Carriger’s Soulless, and I totally loved it! I’m fascinated by the steampunk sub-genre, and this was a terrific example with a wonderful heroine. Can’t wait for the next book. Also in romance, I enjoyed Carrie Lofty’s unusual look at the Robin Hood legend What a Scoundrel Wants and Liz Carlyle’s Tempted All Night. And I loved Susan Wittig Albert’s new Beatrix Potter mystery, The Tale of Applebeck Orchard (I really enjoy this whole series).

There are two other novels I read that really stayed with me. I read them months ago, and still remember them vividly, though they are very different from each other. The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society by Mary Ann Shaffer and Annie Burrows is an epistolary novel featuring extremely vivid characters and a well-drawn setting of an island under occupation and recovering from it post-war. I hate, hate, hate when a book is described as “uplifting,” but, well, this book really is. There are aspects that are quite dark, but overall it’s a lovely look at the resilience of people. I also loved Sarah Waters’ The Little Stranger, which had an equally vivid setting but was possibly the scariest book I have ever read! Dr. Faraday has long been obsessed with the local Stately Home, Hundreds Hall (which is its own character in the story) and its family the Ayerses. Class conflict melds with the supernatural, subtly building to a terrifying finish. Eeek, I shiver now just thinking about it!

And it was a truly exceptional year for terrific non-fiction. I had a hard time narrowing it down, but here are some that stand out for me:

John Guy’s A Daughter’s Love, about Sir Thomas More and his devoted daughter Meg. Meg was More’s favorite child, a deeply intellectual woman who carried on his legacy after his death (and even effected a daring rescue of his head from London Bridge). A wonderful look at a dark, dangerous era and an extraordinary woman.

Veronica Buckley’s The Secret Wife of Louis XIV. Another extraordinary woman in dangerous times of violent change! Francoise d’Aubigne, Madame de Maintenon, rose from poverty-stricken beginnings as the daughter of a condemned traitor (reprieved at the last minute and sent off to the West Indies) and then teenaged wife of the cripple poet Scarron to the very pinnacle of French society through sheer intelligence and force of will (and a little sneakiness, too).

Richard Holmes, The Age of Wonder. This book has received many end-of-year accolades and justly so. It’s a feat of great storytelling as well as a look at a moment of intense scientific change. Holmes focuses on a small group of dedicated Romantic-era scientists, most notably William and Caroline Herschel, Humphry Davy, Joseph Banks, and Mungo Park, all working in different aspects of science.


Michael Holroyd, A Strange Eventful History. A look at the lives of actors Ellen Terry and Henry Irving and their tumultuous families amid the rise and fall of the Lyceum Theater. A long book, but it reads much too quickly–I wanted to keep on with these people after the end of the story! A wonderful look at the world of the Victorian theater and the mind-set of most unconventional people.

Caroline Moorehead, Dancing to the Precipice. Another book about a strong, intelligent woman in times of upheaval. Lucie de la Tour du Pin was born into the French aristocracy and lived a long, eventful life, serving at the courts of both Marie Antoinette and Josephine, traveling Europe with her diplomat husband (who she loved very much), surviving the Revolution (she and her family eventually fled to New York, where they spent 3 years on an upstate farm before returning to France), the years of Napoleon and his downfall, and so much else. The story mixes politics and court intrigues with daily family life. I loved it.

Some honorable mentions: Paul Collins, The Book of William (a look at the history and life of the First Folio). Peter Martin, Samuel Johnson: A Biography. Celia Lyttleton, Scent Trail (the author tracks down the ingredients for her exclusive perfume). Jane Kamensky and Jill Lepore, Blindspot (written in the style of an 18th century picaresque novel–fascinating!). Jonathan Bate, Soul of the Age (a new bio of Shakespeare–with a twist). Wendy Moore, Wedlock (a look at a Georgian marriage that was very disastrous indeed).

It was a good year in movies, too! I actually came across 4 I loved, when usually I am lucky to find 1 or 2. They were Bright Star (lovely, period-looking yet unfussy, and sweetly erotic), Julie and Julia (just don’t watch this one hungry! And Meryl Streep is Julia Child, natch), An Education (best film of the year, IMO), and The Young Victoria, which I saw just last week (gorgeous to look at, and very romantic). I’m hoping to make it to the theater again this week, since I am off work. What would you recommend?

I hope you had a great 2009, and will have an even better 2010! (And Carolyn has a contest going on at her blog where you can win 2 books by–me! Comment over there for a chance to win)

Happy Christmas Week, everyone! It’s a bit crazy here this week, with finishing up work (I’m off tomorrow after noon for a whole week and half, hooray), finishing up shopping/wrapping/baking, working on the WIP (due February!) and general holiday looniness. But I do get to go see a preview of The Young Victoria tomorrow night, which I am very excited about–I’ve been waiting for this movie for a long time! Next week I’ll be able to let you know what I think of the story, the acting, etc, but I am pretty sure there is one aspect I will like very much, which is the costumes (of course!). They look very authentic in the photos, as well as quite pretty. (And if Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend are also a bit prettier than the originals, well who am I to complain?) (There is already an excellent review at Scandalous Women!)

So while I run off to do some lunch-hour last minute shopping today, enjoy the images!

(I love how the Queen’s tiara is the model for the one “Victoria” is wearing! And how beautiful is that shade of blue?)

(First comes love, then comes marriage…)

(Then comes Victoria with the baby carriage! I’ve always enjoyed this portrait because they look so supremely unconcerned that little Princess Vicky is playing with dead birds)

What do you think of the costumes? Have you seen the movie yet (and if so what did you think??) What other historical figures would you love to see made into movies, and who would you cast?

I ran across this bit whilst reading Northanger Abbey with my budding Janeite:

“Although our productions have afforded more extensive and unaffected pleasure than those of any other literary corporation in the world, no species of composition has been so much decried. From pride, ignorance, or fashion, our foes are almost as many as our readers. And while the abilities of the nine-hundredth abridger of the History of England, or of the man who collects and publishes in a volume some dozen lines of Milton, Pope, and Prior, with a paper from the Spectator, and a chapter from Stene, are eulogized by a thousand pens–there seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labour of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them.”

And I thought of it again at my friend Therese Walsh’s booksigning, where I found myself in an amicable debate with a stranger on the question of whether Jane Austen wrote literary or popular fiction. The other lady argued that of course Jane was literary, while I suggested that Jane was writing popular fiction of her time. Our discussion was pretty lively but we realized we didn’t have a good definition for what was literary versus popular, one that didn’t do injustice to one or the other.

I can’t remember all the ground we covered (I was drinking wine and enjoying myself) but here are some ideas I’ve seen or heard on the web and elsewhere. Please note I don’t necessarily agree with these definitions. Many are silly and I can come up with all sorts of counterexamples. Anyway, let’s see where Jane’s work fits.

The quality of writing is better in literary versus popular fiction.

I don’t necessarily agree, but by this rule Jane’s work is LITERARY.

Literary authors write for art’s sake; authors of popular fiction write for money.

I remember reading that Jane was glad that her earnings helped her family financially; on the other hand, profit wasn’t her sole motive. I’d say this test is inconclusive.

Literary novels are meant to elevate the mind; popular novels are meant to amuse.

Well, here’s another quote, from a letter Jane wrote to Mr. Clarke, librarian to the Prince Regent.

“I could not sit seriously down to write a serious romance under any other motive than to save my life; and if it were indispensable for me to keep it up and never relax into laughing at myself or at other people, I am sure I should be hung before I had finished the first chapter.

By this rule, I’d say Jane’s work is POPULAR.

Literary novels are good for you (like cod liver oil). Popular novels are what people actually want to read.

Easy answer here—Jane’s work is POPULAR.

Popular fiction is written to fit specific genre expectations, e.g. romance, horror, mystery. Literary fiction has no such constraints.

This is about the most sensible delineation I’ve seen anywhere. But back when Jane was writing, I think novels were novels and not pigeon-holed into genres the way they are now. And as the Northanger Abbey quote indicates, they weren’t as well-respected as other literary forms. So this test is inconclusive.

So much classic fiction fits well into modern genres. Novels by Jane Austen and the Brontes (romance/women’s fiction), Edgar Allen Poe (horror), Jules Verne (science fiction) are a few that come to mind. Which gets me to the next “rule”.

Literary fiction stands the test of time; popular fiction is ephemeral.

Not that I think this will be true (for instance, I think Harry Potter will endure) but in Jane’s case, this is a no-brainer. By this rule, her work is LITERARY.

So anyway, in this totally un-scholarly analysis, it comes to a tie. What do you think? Is Jane Austen’s work literary or popular? Or does her work transcend such categories?

Happy Birthday, Jane, and thanks for the hours of “extensive and unaffected pleasure”!

Elena

(Don’t forget! Today is the second to last day to enter to win an ARC of my first Laurel McKee book, Countess of Scandal! Visit my website to find out how. It makes a great holiday gift for–you!)

Okay, so now it is December 15! Close to zero hour for holiday gifts. Maybe you have a Janeite on your list you need a last-minute gift for? (Or even a non-Janeite who needs to be converted!). Never fear–there’s a plethora of choice out there for everybody. There’s always classics, like a beautiful copy of a favorite book or a DVD of a favorite movie (or a Jane Austen action figure! Mine is very useful–she sits on my desk and lectures me about getting to writing work when I’m wasting too much time, er, blogging). But there are some more unusual choices, as well:

A Pride and Prejudice board game! (Who gets to Pemberly first??)

A Jane doll from the fabulous Unemployed Philosophers Guild

This charm from the Jane Austen Centre in Bath! (I have a silver bracelet with charms from my travels–I would love to add this one)

A bracelet from the BBC website

If you have an infant and want to indoctrinate them into Janeite-ism early…

T-shirts! (Many to choose from–I just ordered one that says I am a “Headstrong, Obstinate Girl”)


Mugs (again, many to choose from! This one asks What Would Jane Do?)

A beautiful pendant from Tartx (I own a few of her pieces of jewelry and they are beautiful)

Happy birthday, Jane! (And happy birthday to my mom, too, who had the good luck to be born on the same day! Maybe I need to get her a Jane item for her present). What Jane present would you choose?

I’m glad I’m starting to see less of a certain reality TV couple on the newsstands and the grocery store. I haven’t watched Jon & Kate Plus 8, before or after the scandal. I was put off by the commercials which always seemed to feature screaming kids. I’ve been there, done that with two and have no desire to see it multiplied fourfold, you know? And I’m not much into reality TV, unless you count makeover shows. So I haven’t watched other shows featuring large families like Table for 12 or 18 Kids and Counting.

But they’re clearly popular. Maybe because most families are smaller now, people are just curious. Maybe people like the idea because they feel that in a large family one would never be lonely. (I’m not so sure.) But definitely there’s lots of room for chaos and conflict, never a dull moment. Personally, there are many times I *long* for dull moments when I could sit down with a cup of tea and a book! Although I love my family, I also really like being alone sometimes, so being part of a large family isn’t a personal fantasy of mine.

When talking about historical romance series, large families are historically accurate. While some couples went their separate ways after the production of the “heir and spare” or had small families for other reasons, many couples wanted large families. A wealthy lord might hope not only for an heir but also other sons who might (with his help) become generals, admirals, bishops, diplomats or MPs and thus extend the family’s influence. Daughters might make strategic alliances or at least be a comfort to their parents.

Amongst the fifty women studied in one of my favorite references books, In the Family Way by Judith Schneid Lewis, the mean number of children was 7.5. The most prolific lady studied, the Duchess of Leinster (1731-1814), had eighteen children by the Duke, went on after his death to marry her sons’ tutor and had three more children, for a total of 21 children in 31 years. Whew! It sounds exhausting, even with nursery staff, governesses and tutors to help.

Many readers love historical romance series featuring large families. Personally, I’m OK with them but prefer when they aren’t too closely linked. I never have as much time as I’d like to read, so it’s nice that I can enjoy individual books, like those in Jo Beverley’s Malloren series, without committing to reading all of them on time and in order. I know, that violates the whole marketing concept, but I am not a typical reader.

I’m OK with romantic couples being depicted, in an epilogue, surrounded by a large and growing family. I can imagine that with the right household help, and with the hero being more involved as a father than most men of his time, it could work. But I don’t need to see a huge brood–or any children at all, for that matter–to believe the couple are happy.

Do you enjoy stories of large families, whether modern or historical? Why or why not? Do you have any favorite romance series featuring large families? What sorts of endings do you like to see for romantic couples?

Elena

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