Wycked

This afternoon I ordered Patricia Rice's latest book, The Wicked Wyckerly. Love the title, but I've always been a sucker for alliteration. I can't wait to read this. I decided to order after reading an excerpt and an interview Pat gave to RT. I admit, it's been a while since I've read one of Pat's books, but this is a traditional Regency without any paranormal elements and it sounds wicked good.

In this book, Pat has taken the usual fare for Regency Historicals and set it on its ear. This one is about impoverished nobility. Yikes! You mean there were nobles during the Regency period who weren't stinking rich? I say, bring it on, this will be a breath of fresh air. It's the first in a series about younger sons who will not inherit. Pat also has a wicked sense of humor, which I've always loved about her, and from the excerpt I read, she's given it free rein in this latest book.

Speaking of a wicked sense of humor... this is a switch in subject, but I can't go without sharing my hubby's latest jab. He owns a small retail business and today a male customer asked if he sells "smart water." My husband said, "No, I've never heard of it. But if I had some, I'd hand out samples." Ah, I love that man. ;o)

Devon

From One Writer To Another...

Even with a huge organization like RWA, local state chapters, critique groups, and online networking sites, writing is still a solitary pursuit. When it comes right down to it, it's just us and the blank computer screen and what happens when the two of us interact that will make or break us as writers. That said, I don't think any of us could make it through all the bumps and low points we encounter along the journey without the support, encouragement, and sometimes well-deserved butt kicking from some special person or persons who are always there to talk us through when we hit a wall and start to panic. You know, that person you call to celebrate a request... or commiserate over a rejection. Yeah, that person. In most cases, that someone is another writer we met somewhere along the way. All I can say is, thank God for other writers who understand the industry speak and know exactly what we are feeling when the worst and the best happen. So, this is a shout out to writers everywhere. Just wanted to say, thank you for being there.

Devon

Independence Day

Happy 4th of July, everyone. In honor of our nation's independence, I'd like to pay tribute to a great American hero who helped preserve that independence and became the most decorated American soldier of World War II. Audie Murphy, soldier, actor, and veteran's advocate. Gone, far too young, but not forgotten.

That Was Then

Several years ago, I read a feature article in a magazine about author Pat Conroy. It's been in the back of my mind all this time because his writing process for some of his early books was so amazing. I'm sure the article comes to mind because one of the things he did was keep a word list. Any word he came across or heard in conversation and liked, he added to his list and found a way to incorporate it into his writing. I've started doing this with words that I see and hear all the time, but don't normally use. When I come across them, I write them down in a notebook, then look up the precise meanings and write those down, too. I keep the list handy and, while I'm writing, I occasionally take a look to see if I can use any of the words in my manuscript. In this way, I feel I'm broadening my vocabulary. After all, what is a writer without an extensive arsenal of words?

But back to Pat Conroy. At the time the article was written, he had secluded himself in a scenic old lighthouse on the Carolina coast to write a manuscript. He stayed there, alone, and did nothing but write until the manuscript was finished. His food, drink, and other necessities were delivered to his doorstep by friends so he didn't have to leave his writing zone.

Here's the really amazing part. His writing process was simply to write. And write, and write. The initial drafts for the books titled Prince of Tides and Beach Music ended up at something just over 2,000 pages each. He wrote the scenes as they came to him, and in no particular order. By his own admission, he ended up with a mess of manuscript that he couldn't make heads or tails of. It was his editor, Nan Talese, who took those gi-normous manuscripts, pored through them page by page, slashing whole sections and rearranging, until they became the books that eventually went on to become bestsellers. How incredible is that?

It makes me wonder. In today's publishing climate, where editors want everything as close to perfection as possible on submission--so there's a minimum of editing--how far would Pat Conroy's ponderous manuscripts have gotten? Probably about as far as my first manuscript, which ran just slightly over 700 pages--a wee pittance compared to Mr. Conroy's tomes. Green as spring grass, I queried that monster to agents. I received a note from one, who shall remain nameless (because he's still agenting today), that was absolutely priceless. He said, and I quote: "Are you kidding me with this?" But back to Mr. Conroy. I'm going to take the optimistic high road and say that I'm sure he would have worked through the whole culling and editing process himself, eventually. Those books would still have been published and gone on to become bestsellers. But how much longer would the road to publication have taken?

I thought Mr. Conroy's story was interesting and I think it serves as a good example of how much the publishing industry has changed in recent years. I have to wonder, though, if there are any authors in this day and time who still receive that kind of special treatment from their publishers.

Devon

The Devil Is In The Details

While browsing author blogs, especially group blogs, I see a LOT of authors discussing the problems they find in today's Regency Historical romances. There's a lot of debate about anachronisms and I've often been tempted to include my two cents on the subject because I see things posted that are--at the very least--questionable and--at worst--maybe just plain wrong. But I don't comment because I'm no authority on the Regency. The main complaint of these Regency Historical authors appears to be about other Regency Historical authors who are getting their facts wrong and the idea that these historically inaccurate books are making them look bad. The more I see, the more I'm beginning to wonder if there's anyone out there who really knows the end-all, be-all of information about the Regency period.

To satisfy my own curiosity, I've looked up some of the things in dispute on the blogs. What I found was a lot of conflicting information. On both the internet and in print. So, is it any wonder there's disagreement when the various resources about the period can't seem to agree or are misinformed themselves?

Here's an example. One author complained about the use of the word "scone" during the Regency period. She stated that scones weren't around until the Victorian era. So, I went looking. According to Wiki, the common complement to English tea during the Regency was scones with clotted cream and jam. Another source stated that scones were of Scottish origin in the early 1500's. To me, it's not much of a stretch to think that during the 300 year interim, this food item might have ended up a couple of hundred miles down the road in English kitchens. So, what's the answer? Even after doing a bit of research about this small detail, it still isn't clear.

Here's another one. Did English gentlemen in the Regency wear Hessian boots, or did they wear Wellingtons. I have no idea, but I'd really like to know. Some authors who have been writing Regencies for years claim that both are wrong. So, what's the answer?

Use of the word "whiskey" also seems to be a sore spot with a lot of Regency authors. I looked it up. Scotch whiskey came into being in 1778 in neighboring Scotland. So, it seems only reasonable to me that during the 40 year period that followed, maybe a bottle or two of Scottish produced whiskey made it over the border into England. Who can say conclusively that it didn't?

For years, one of the biggest complaints I've seen has to do with the use of contractions in books set during the Regency. Many of the old school authors claim it just "wasn't done." I admit, I've never read Jane Austen, but I'm told she did use contractions in her writing. She passed away in 1817, which means she actually lived and wrote during the Regency period. I guess even she didn't wish to read an entire book that had no contractions.

In wrapping this up (for now), I'd like to offer the radical suggestion that maybe the anachronisms and historical inaccuracies that sometimes appear in historical romances aren't always the fault of sloppy research. Just maybe some of them are due to all the conflicting information floating around out there. All I did was go poking around a little bit and the problem immediately jumped out at me. On many of these minute details of the period, no two resources seem to completely agree. It would be nice if there was a comprehensive, accurate reference for each of the most popular time periods throughout history. In the meantime, I guess we just have to keep digging.

Devon