Falling in Love: Plan it, Plot it, Show it—in Four Phases

When I started teaching romance writing, it took a while for me to realize that there's an aspect of romance we seldom consider in depth. We talk a lot about characterization and plot and conflict. But too often we assume that the love story -- the attraction and progression of our characters as they fall in love -- will just happen naturally.

But that assumption is how we get so many characters in romance who move from "I hate you" to "I have to have you forever" with no logical reason -- leaving the reader scratching her head about how on earth these two could ever have fallen in love.

Today's post comes from author Ginger Monette, author of Darcy's Hope -- Beauty from Ashes.

Ginger has made a study of how to write characters who move plausibly and convincingly from initial meeting to happy ever after. Please welcome Ginger! 

~~~~~~~

As romance novelists, it's our job to weave stories that gives readers a front row seat to watch the unfolding of a beautiful love story.

So what's the best way to show a couple moving from “Hello my name is” (or even “I despise you”) to “You're my soulmate and I want to spend the rest of my life with you”?

Having been disappointed by numerous novels where the couple claimed to suddenly “be in love” without actually “falling in love,” I went on a quest to investigate this mysterious process of falling head over heels. What I discovered changed my writing.

I dissected some fifty romance novels and made notes. All the couples had hefty doses of attraction, but the most satisfying stories went beyond attraction to something deeper. They showed the characters passing through four phases that moved them step by step from “meh” (or downright hatred) to “wowie-zowie he's the most wonderful person in the world.”  And each phase seemed to be characterized by distinct thought patterns—particularly if at first Prince Charming seemed to be more of a frog than a prince. Here are the stages I observed:

Acknowledgement of him:

-Acknowledges some good quality about him (talented, kind, generous, etc)

-Finds him attractive

-Hyper aware of him, or hyper critical of his shortcomings (which often signals preoccupation or a subconscious denial of admiration)

-Acknowledges an attraction, but blows it off

Appreciation of his good qualities:

-Defends his character while not necessarily liking him

-Is genuinely thankful for a good quality

-Beginning to warm towards him

-Not so judgmental towards him

-More willing to consider his opinion on a matter

Admiration:

-Takes his advice

-Imitates quality or action of his

-Admits her initial criticism or objections were exaggerated or biased

-Curiosity grows—willing to spend more time in his company

-Acknowledges similar values or mutual interests

-Finds she is thinking (fondly) of him more and more

Adoration

-Openly acknowledges her love/warm feelings for him

-Desires to be in his company

-Thinks he is wonderful

-Thinks he is perfect match

-Misses him painfully when he is gone

-Thinks about him constantly

So how did this awareness of stages change my writing? 

In my novel Darcy's Hope ~ Beauty from Ashes, I kept these stages and behaviours in mind as I crafted scenes. They became an outline of sorts that I wove with compelling action, mystery, suspense, and historical detail. When my characters (Jane Austen's iconic Fitzwilliam Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet) are reunited at a WWI field hospital, Elizabeth is none too happy to encounter Darcy. And although she disdains him, I had her acknowledge that he is handsome and there is something between them. This cracks the door to romance and gets readers rooting for the couple.

Then, I moved her into the appreciation stage by having her surprise herself by praising and defending Darcy to a colleague. After she directly benefits from his wise leadership, she comes to appreciate him, even though she still doesn't like him. Readers can feel her slowly warming towards him and eagerly turn pages to find out how the couple will sort out the baggage between them.

As truths of Darcy's past are dramatically revealed and she comes to understand him better, I have her admit that her initial criticisms were misplaced. Now, with a softened heart, she's able to look at him more objectively. Then I set up an ah-ha moment where she realizes they both share a similar deep-seated insecurity which turns her reservations about him into empathy. Now that her appreciation has turned to admiration, her feelings are almost there! And readers are waiting with bated breath to find out what it will take for him to fully win her heart.

I gave him some scenes that show off his admirable qualities, so not only does she find herself attracted to him, she admires his leadership, work ethic, and drive. Then I purposely played up the things they have in common and showed her enjoying his company. In short, I showed them building a relationship. Finally, after they share a heroic act and laugh over a tent whipping in the wind, she realizes that in fact she adores him. 

Intentionally crafting scenes that follow this four-stage progression of romance enables readers to sense her falling in love, so it's no surprise when she finally declares it. I think a lot of romance authors make the mistake of never showing the characters moving beyond physical attraction and chemistry. It's not easy! But to write a fulfilling romance, the characters need to interact on a deep level and share common interests. Readers should see the couple building a relationship and hear their internal dialog as their thoughts and feelings evolve.

Using this four step model, I think Darcy's Hope has succeeded in providing readers a deep sense of satisfaction as they watch the heroine's tiny bud of acknowledgement open into appreciation, then expand with admiration, and finally blossom into full adoration.

What challenges do you face showing a couple falling in love?

 ~~~~~

Downton Abbey Meets Pride & Prejudice!

Escape to the era of Downton Abbey and experience all the drama of World War 1 alongside Jane Austen's iconic Elizabeth Bennet & Fitzwilliam Darcy. You'll watch their tender love unfold as they learn to work together and reconcile their differences at a field hospital only miles from the Front. When injury and espionage separate the couple, Darcy is crushed. But Donwell Abbey holds a secret that just might change everything.

“…a stellar example of fine Austenesque literature. …an exceptionally moving story complete with a compelling plot, danger, mystery, action, introspection, vivid detail, and an emotionally wrought romance.” ~Austenesque Reviews

Darcy’s Hope Beauty from Ashes:

            Universal link for all retailers. https://books2read.com/u/47kXOj  

            -Amazon USA :  http://bit.ly/2cy01KFBlogTourAmaUS

Darcy’s Hope at Donwell Abbey:
            Universal link for all retailers. https://www.books2read.com/u/3GMPaK
            -Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M6A76CZ/

Website: GingerMonette.com

Author’s Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/Ginger-Monette-Author-612096318934524/  

Top Five Ways Historical Writers Go Wrong

Writing any book is tough enough, but stepping back in time to create characters from previous centuries presents a yawning trap for today's writers. As an author myself, I struggle with anachronisms -- for instance, I only recently learned that the term "grandfather clock" wasn't in common use until the late 1800s -- after an 1876 song called "My Grandfather's Clock" became popular. Before that, they were called "longcase clocks.")

But it isn't just material goods that create problems for historical writers. Here are the top five ways we all tend to get it wrong:

Using modern speech. We’re so used to our ordinary way of talking that modern expressions often slip into our characters’ dialogue and thoughts. While expressions like “Get a grip” and “I haven’t got a clue” are pretty obvious, others aren’t quite so easy to weed out. Like the nineteenth-century character who tells his grandson, “I don’t like the people you’re hanging around with.” Or the narrator of a novel set in 1066 who says, “They took off into the woods.” Or the Regency heroine who says the hero has derailed her train of thought – before trains and rails were commonplace. Or a hero from the 1820s who says, “I didn’t come here to be analyzed like some patient in a mental asylum” – 70 years before Sigmund Freud developed psychoanalysis. A more subtle (but still disconcerting) example is the heroine who says to the hero, “You think everything is all about you, Your Grace.” 

Including modern attitudes. Far too often in romance fiction, people who were supposedly born and reared in the 1300s or the 1500s or the 1800s think and talk and behave as though they just stepped out of Starbucks holding a latte. It’s true that in order to appeal to today’s reader, main characters tend to be more modern in outlook than their real life peers would have been. But when characters don’t even stop and think about it before they spout today’s perspectives on things like religion, lifestyles and women’s rights, or when they display today’s understanding of psychology, hygiene, nutrition, and medicine, it’s tough to make the reader believe they’re real.

Messing up titles. The most common error when it comes to using aristocratic titles is using the wrong form of address, or using multiple forms of address for the same person. Lady Sarah Winchester isn’t the same person as Lady Winchester is. (Lady Sarah is the daughter of a peer, Lady Winchester is Lord Winchester’s wife.) Lord Winchester isn’t the same person as Lord Randolph Winchester. (Lord Randolph Winchester is the younger son of a duke or a marquess, Lord Winchester is the big cheese himself.) Sir James Smythe is always Sir James, not Sir Smythe. When the author doesn’t realize there’s a big difference between variations which seem so small, it’s easy to dismiss the story entirely.

 Not understanding the rules of inheritance. In the eras most commonly used in historical fiction, illegitimate sons could not inherit titles – period. Oldest sons could not be bypassed in favor of younger ones. Daughters could not pass along titles, except for a very few cases by royal decree. Most often, all the land and money was left to the eldest son. I remember an author who made her heroine a duchess… but not by having her marry a duke, which would be the only way for her to achieve that rank. Instead, this heroine got her title because her grandmother, who was the previous duchess, abdicated and bypassed her daughter in favor of her granddaughter. That’s at least three kinds of impossible.

Just plain getting it wrong. Why bother to look it up when we can make it up? It’s tempting to assume that our vague recollection of the timeline is accurate, or figure that if some other historical author used it, we don’t need to check for ourselves.

A few prize-winning examples: The Regency hero and heroine who honeymooned on an ocean liner – decades before ocean travel started to be comfortable. The maid who says to her mistress, “It’s chilly; you should wear your wool kid gloves” – they can’t be both wool and leather. The hero and heroine who run away from a London ball to Gretna Green, arriving there early the next morning – but traveling 320 miles took at least 36 hours in those days. A Regency hero and heroine who get married at St. George’s Cathedral – St. George’s Hanover Square is a simple parish church, not a cathedral.

This trap yawns equally wide for authors writing in other historical periods. Take a Viking romance which refers to potatoes – five centuries before they were introduced to Europe. Or a story set in 1949 where the narrator says, “He passed out after we hit the interstate” – years before the interstate highway system was even proposed.

Some of these things sound pretty obvious when we look at them in a list. But beware – they can sneak up and attack us when we’re not paying attention.

This blog was first posted on Sitting on the Porch with Kelly, hosted by author Kelly Abell. 

Creating Extraordinary Characters

For an interview today I was jotting some notes and talking points about characters -- a subject which can and does fill entire books. But here are the three traits which came to me as most important about characters in fiction:

HEROIC. Characters in fiction – and especially in romance – need to be heroic. I don't mean heroic in the sense of wearing a cape and tights; I'm talking about heroic in the sense the word was used in classical literature. People in fiction are in some way larger than life. They're more than real people. Their problems are bigger or more intense. Their flaws are more problematic, more likely to lead to huge trouble. Their personalities are brighter, or darker, or richer, or more twisted, than those of ordinary people. In this view, even a villain is a heroic character -- because he's not simply a guy who commits random, casual crimes. He has a plan and a purpose and a motive.

EXTRAORDINARY.  Think extraordinary, not perfect. In the work of new writers, I see a lot of characters who have it all. They’re gorgeous. They have great jobs. They love what they do. They have wonderful friends. They live in a great house or condo. They drive the car they've always dreamed of. They have designer clothes and shoes and hair. But the thing is, people in books are much more intriguing when things aren’t going right for them – when they’ve lost the job or the condo or the friend.

BALANCED. Characters work best when there's a basic balance between the protagonist and the antagonist (or, in romance, between the hero and the heroine). If you build a big blustery hero who always says what he thinks, and you pair him with a heroine who’s got low self-esteem – the hero comes off as a bully and the heroine as a weakling. If you pair a soft-spoken laid back hero with a hard-driving, bossy heroine, then he’s apt to look weak and she may come across as being bitchy. But if you put the blustery hero who always says what he thinks with the heroine who’s just as outspoken and bossy, you’ve got sparks. (It might not be a household you want to live in – but then that’s one of the ways fiction is different from real life.) 

In the same way, the hero/protagonist and the villain need to be balanced. If the villain is so super-powerful and clued in and knowledgeable that it seems the hero can't possibly win, then it's not convincing when the hero keeps stumbling into answers and being saved by coincidence. If the villain is so inept that it's hard to see how he can keep functioning at all, then the hero's victory isn't satisfying and savory. Only when the two sides each have strengths and resources and talents is the battle exciting.

What traits do you find necessary to consider when you're developing characters?

Speed Dating for Authors

Author Tierney James has this cool feature on her blog called "Speed Dating for Authors" where she shares intriguing bits and pieces about books and authors -- including trivia or personal details or stuff you wouldn't otherwise know.  It's a good place to find new authors or find out more about your favorites.

This week I'm featured -- along with some photos of my dollhouse. 

Come on over to Journeys, Treks and Daylilies and join us! Here's a sneak peek: 

Yep, that's really a dollhouse!

Splitting Heirs

Under the aristocratic system of primogeniture, followed almost religiously during the Regency period, the eldest son is the heir. He gets the title, the fortune, and the land. 

But what if there isn’t an eldest son?

If a title-holder has no legitimate children, or has only daughters, then the lot goes to the nearest male relative of the title-holder. The next in line would be the title-holder’s next-younger brother, and then his sons (if he has any). If the younger brother has no children or only daughters, the title descends to the next brother in the original family, and then to his sons.

An eldest son is known as the heir apparent, because no matter what happens, if he outlives his father he will inherit. Because no one can come between him and the title, he is the apparent – obvious – heir.

If there is no oldest son, then whoever stands next in line is known as the heir presumptive. Since the title-holder could still sire a son (no matter how unlikely that might be), the heir presumptive could still be pushed out of the line of succession. So he’s presumed – but not guaranteed – to be the heir.

If the title-holder dies without a surviving son, but his widow is pregnant, then everything comes to a halt until the baby is born. If it’s a boy, he will hold the title from the moment of his birth. But if it’s a girl, then the next heir in the male line wins the jackpot.

I used this scenario in my Regency novel, Gentleman in Waiting – where the entire family is gathered, waiting to see whether Lady Abingdon’s child will be a boy or a girl...

* * * * *

Everything depends on the baby…

Lady Mariah Gerrard anxiously awaits the birth of her stepmother’s child, desperately hoping for a boy who will inherit their father’s title so Mariah can gain access to her dowry and her freedom. Her father’s cousin John, the next heir in line, has other plans – so if the baby is a girl, disaster looms for Mariah.

When Myles Moreton comes to Edgeworth to manage the family estate, Mariah’s no longer certain that even the birth of a boy will solve her problems. Why is money missing? Why is Mariah’s dowry in doubt?  Despite his genial façade, is Cousin John planning mischief – or worse? Why is Myles Moreton, rather than the late earl’s trustees, suddenly in control? And how can Myles -- a man who’s entirely ineligible -- be not only completely maddening but utterly charming and very, very tempting?

As the family gathers to await the birth, Mariah and Myles search for answers – and they find that playing the waiting game can have its own rewards.

Buy links for Gentleman in Waiting

Authors Chat About Writing Historical Fiction

Recently, I was a guest on Marsha Casper Cook's blogtalk radio show to chat about the challenges of writing historical fiction. Another of the guests, Kelly Abell, has posted her comments and a link to the show here. I hope you'll enjoy listening! 

Axminstering and Other Temptations

Whenever I finish writing a book, there are a couple of items which automatically go on my to-do list. 

The first is to clean up my office, because by the time the project is done, my desk looks like a tornado hit it. (And no, I’m not posting a photo of the mess. Things last forever on the Internet.)

The other is to look back at the job and assess what went well and what could have been improved. In this case, a novella which should have taken maybe three weeks to finish – especially because I’d written a good chunk of it months ago – took twice as long. One of those weeks was lost to a nasty case of flu, but another week or so disappeared because I was Axminstering instead of writing.

What’s “Axminstering”? I’m glad you asked.

In my novella, which is set in an English manor house in 1816, I wrote that my hero felt like the Axminster carpet in the drawing room had turned into quicksand and was pulling him down. Then I paused to wonder – were there Axminster carpets in 1816, or were they more of a Victorian than a Regency phenomenon? 

It’s a question historical authors have to ask themselves with practically every sentence. (Did French doors exist in the Regency – and were they called that, or something else? Did people say “bamboozle” or was that later? What really is the difference between a morning dress and a walking dress? Would the hero be wearing top boots or Hessians?)

But though we really do have to ask the questions and look up the answers, it’s not often that we need that bit of information right at that very moment. My hero could still have been thinking about quicksand if he was standing on a Persian carpet or a marble floor or just a plain old rug – and I could have looked up Axminster carpets at another time.

Instead, I went zooming over to Google where I discovered that the first Axminster carpet was made in 1755, in plenty of time for my drawing room to be decorated with one.

That much research wasn’t a problem. But then I followed the trail. What exactly would that carpet have looked like? What was the most likely combination of colors? What would it have been made of? How big might it have been? And since Wikipedia kindly offered a list of heritage properties where Axminster carpets can be seen, I wandered through those pages searching for pictures. And when I didn't see carpets there, I kept looking till I found images. (Here’s a new carpet, to give you the idea: AXMINSTER)

How much of that knowledge made it into the story? Zero. Zip. Nada. The line’s exactly as I first wrote it.

When I shared this story with my students at Gotham Writers’ Workshop, one of them said in glee, “From now on, I’m not going to call it procrastinating – I’m Axminstering!” (Thanks, Michelle!)

Do you Axminster? What are the temptations you face as you write?

And That's My Point of View...

Are you confused about the difference between first person and third person point of view? Between omniscient and selective? Here are some examples to help you distinguish between the many varieties of POV.

First person: (includes the thoughts, feelings and perspective of one main character, who's telling his/her own story)

             As I walked up the hill, I realized that the atmosphere was just too quiet. There was no sound from the cardinal who was nearly always singing from the top of the maple tree. I thought I saw a shadow move high up on the slope, but when I looked again it was gone. Still, I shuddered as I felt a silent threat pass over me like a cloud over the sun.

Second person: (turns the reader into the character)

             As you walk up the hill, you realize that the atmosphere's just too quiet. There's no sound from the cardinal you know is almost always singing from the top of the maple tree. You think you see a shadow move high up on the slope, but when you look again it's gone. You shudder as you feel a silent threat pass over you. You feel cold, like a cloud just passed over the sun.

Third person selective singular: (includes the thoughts and perspective of one main character)

             As she walked up the hill, she realized that the atmosphere was just too quiet. There was no sound from the cardinal who she so often heard singing from the top of the maple tree. She thought she saw a shadow move high up on the slope, but when she looked again it was gone. Nevertheless, she shuddered as she felt a silent threat pass over her. It felt like a cloud creeping over the sun.

Third person selective multiple: (includes the thoughts of more than one main character but only one at a time. The scene break--*****--indicates a change from one POV to the other)

             As she walked up the hill, she realized that the atmosphere was just too quiet. There was no sound from the cardinal who she so often heard singing from the top of the maple tree. She thought she saw a shadow move high up on the slope, but when she looked again it was gone. Nevertheless, she shuddered as she felt a silent threat pass over her. It felt like a cloud creeping over the sun.

*****

            He saw her start up the hill, and he moved quickly behind the shelter of the huge old maple tree. If she saw him now, everything would be ruined, but if he could stay hidden until she came within range--well, then she'd have to talk to him. Wouldn't she?

Third person dual: (includes the thoughts of two main characters)

             As she walked up the hill, she realized that the atmosphere was just too quiet. There was no sound from the cardinal who she so often heard singing from the top of the maple tree.

            He saw her start up the hill, and he moved quickly behind the shelter of the huge old maple tree. If she saw him now, everything would be ruined.

            She thought she saw a shadow move high up on the slope, but when she looked again it was gone.

            If he could just stay hidden until she came within range, he thought, then she'd have to talk to him. Wouldn't she?

            She shuddered as she felt a silent threat pass over her. It felt like a cloud creeping over the sun.

Third person omniscient: (all-knowing; can include thoughts and perspective of all characters)

             As the girl walked up the hill, she realized that the atmosphere was just too quiet.

            The cardinal tipped his head back and drew breath to sing, but just as the first note passed his beak he heard the crack of a dead branch far below his perch high in the maple tree. Startled, he looked down, cocking his head to one side and watching with great interest while the man rattled the blades of grass as he tried to hide himself behind the tree.

            As the man saw her start up the hill, he moved quickly into the shelter of the huge old maple tree. If she saw him now, everything would be ruined.

            She thought she saw a shadow move high up on the slope, but when she looked again it was gone.

            The man thought if he could stay hidden until she came within range, she'd have to talk to him. Wouldn't she?

            The girl shuddered as she felt a silent threat pass over her. It felt like a cloud creeping over the sun.

Third person detached: (no thoughts; the POV of screenplays)

            The girl walked up the quiet hillside.

            In the top of the maple tree, the cardinal tipped his head back and drew breath to sing. A dead branch cracked on the ground below the bird's perch.

            The man stepped on the branch and rattled the blades of grass as he moved behind the tree. He watched the girl come up the hillside toward him.

            Her gaze shifted quickly and warily from one shadowy area high on the slope to another, and she shuddered.

Factors which affect POV choices:

    What kind of story is it?--external (action) or internal (psychological)? A story loaded with events is more likely to use third person selective multiple or third person dual, while a story filled with the psychological workings of a character's mind is more likely to be first person or third person selective singular. 

    How long is the story? Will there be time to develop the reader's identification with and sympathy for more than one viewpoint character?

    Who is the main character? Whose story is this? 

    Is any one character is in a position to observe all the major events of the story? 

    Is the main character sympathetic in nature, one the reader is likely to identify with? Is the character able to express himself well and clearly?

    Who is the audience? What is the intended market, and what viewpoint style does the targeted publisher prefer?

12 Things You Maybe Didn't Know About Mourning Customs

As a fan of Regency romances, I've always been interested in the mourning customs of the day -- black clothes and veils most of all. Then I discovered that my friend Loren the historian is even more of a nut than I am about the process of grieving a loved one during the Regency and Victorian periods. We can have hours-long discussions about what he likes to call The Victorian Way of Death. (Isn't that a great title for a book?)

Since my latest Regency romance novel explores what happens after the unexpected death of an earl leaves his entire family -- including his pregnant wife and his daughter -- in limbo, I had to refresh my memory about mourning customs. What was my heroine allowed to wear? How long would she have to remain in seclusion?

So I thought today I'd share some fun facts about death and mourning during the Regency and Victorian periods.

1. Deaths most often occurred in the home, and bodies were laid out in the best parlor for visitors. That's the origin of today's commonly-used term, "funeral parlor" or "funeral home."

2. Not only the survivors but the house was put into a state of mourning. Clocks were stopped, shutters were closed, mirrors were draped or turned to the wall, and the "badge of death" (usually made of black crepe) was hung on the front door.

3. In an era before the telephone and (in the Regency) before the telegraph, the news of a death was sent by mail -- often on stationery which bore a black border to warn the recipient of the bad news inside.

4. Women did not attend burials in the Regency period. They were presumed to be too weak to withstand the shock of standing at a graveside, so they stayed at home.

5. The procession from the home to the church for the funeral service and then on to the graveyard (the word "cemetery" is a Victorian invention) was a ceremonial occasion and the lineup of the mourners was very important. Chief mourners -- those closest in relationship to the deceased -- were first in the procession, followed by other relatives in descending order as the relationship grew more distant. Then came friends, neighbors and other guests.

6. Mourning dress achieved full and tortuous status after the death of Prince Albert in 1861 threw Queen Victoria into a cycle of grief from which she never emerged -- but long before that, widows were expected to wear nothing but black for an entire year, the period known as full mourning. The more distant the person's relationship to the deceased, the less stringent the dress requirements and the shorter the period of time. For a man mourning a distant relative, wearing a black armband for a few weeks was sufficient.

7. After the full mourning period was completed, half-mourning allowed the grieving person to wear purple, lavender, or gray clothing -- but bright colors were not allowed until the mourning period was entirely over. 

8. The widow was expected to seclude herself at home for the entire period of full mourning -- receiving visits only from close friends or relatives and venturing out only to go to church. During half-mourning, she could once again venture out for quiet social occasions and visits, but not parties or balls.

9. Mourning clothes were among the very first mass-produced clothing items. Since the need for them often arose suddenly, there wasn't time for seamstresses or tailors to make garments from scratch.

10. The heavy black veils worn by Victorian widows were dyed using a compound containing arsenic -- which may have contributed to the the large number of ladies who soon followed their husbands to the grave.

11. Mourning jewelry was often specially made of jet -- a black stone resembling coal -- for the grieving person. Sometimes regular jewelry could be re-engineered to suit the purpose, perhaps mounted on a black background. During half-mourning, some regular jewelry could be worn -- diamonds and pearls because they were neutral in color and amethysts because of their purple color.

12. Until 1823, any person who committed suicide was required by law to be buried at a crossroads with a stake driven through the heart, to prevent the ghost from walking. Until 1832, a suicide could be buried only between the hours of 9 p.m. and midnight, with no service or prayers said over the body.

It's relatively easy to find data on Victorian mourning customs; the Regency is a bit tougher to research. In fact, the Regency was part of a transition period between the 18th century (when gravestone symbolism was dominated by the skull and crossbones, skeleton with a scythe, or the death's head) and the high Victorian period (when euphemisms took over and people "entered into rest", "fell asleep in the arms of Jesus", "went to his reward" and so on. 

We still use some of these -- like "passed away" -- so though many of the customs of the 19th century sound weird to us, they still resonate in today's practices.

***

Gentleman in Waiting

Everything depends on the baby…

Lady Mariah Gerrard anxiously awaits the birth of her stepmother’s child, desperately hoping for a boy who will inherit their father’s title so Mariah can gain access to her dowry and her freedom. Her father’s cousin John, the next heir in line, has other plans – so if the baby is a girl, disaster looms for Mariah.

When Myles Moreton comes to Edgeworth to manage the family estate, Mariah’s no longer certain that even the birth of a boy will solve her problems. Why is money missing? Why is Mariah’s dowry in doubt?  Despite his genial façade, is Cousin John planning mischief – or worse? Why is Myles Moreton, rather than the late earl’s trustees, suddenly in control? And how can Myles -- a man who’s entirely ineligible -- be not only completely maddening but utterly charming and very, very tempting?

As the family gathers to await the birth, Mariah and Myles search for answers – and they find that playing the waiting game can have its own rewards.

Gentleman in Waiting links

Lady Charlotte?

This is a photo of a gravestone in our local cemetery. Lady Charlotte is a local celebrity, even though she died in 1873. I've even heard people say, "Did you know there's a member of the royal family buried in Ottumwa Cemetery?"

Well... no. There's not. Furthermore, she's not even who the tombstone says she is. 

The tombstone says

Lady Charlotte, dau (daughter) of

Sir Robt. Lowthe

and wife of

E. T. Hulaniski

Died

Feb. 25, 1873

Aged

23 y. 3 m. 10 d.

Let's break that apart and see what it means...

Charlotte's father was a knight, which is a nice rank -- but it falls several short of the aristocracy, so she can't be "Lady Charlotte" based on her father's rank. He'd have to be at least an earl for her to claim that title.

And her husband seems to have no title at all -- so she can't be "Lady Charlotte" based on his rank either.

So she's really not "Lady Charlotte" at all -- not if she (or whoever wrote the text for her tombstone) is claiming to be part of the British system of aristocracy.

And by the way, here's what her tombstone looks like these days, after another 25 years of weathering. But cemetery preservation is a topic for another day.

The Butler Did It!

Since most of us don’t have servants, it’s sometimes tough to picture what people in service in the grand houses of the past actually did all day. If you've read my post on the housemaid’s job, you may have concluded that the upper servants had a far easier time of it. And that’s true, though it depends on how large the household actually was.

In the grandest of houses, the head of the staff would be a house steward who was in charge of hiring and firing servants and paying the tradesman’s bills, but in the merely grand houses, those duties would be split between the butler – assisted perhaps by an under-butler – and the housekeeper.

While the housekeeper is (naturally) in charge of the house, the butler is in charge of the dining room – including protecting, polishing, and counting the silver and maintaining the wine cellar – and overseeing all the male servants. If there was no valet to wait on the master of the house, the butler took care of his clothing and dressing room.

While the pattern of a butler’s day varied greatly depending on the size of the household and the activities of the family, here’s a pretty normal pattern for the butler in a medium-sized house:

It is the butler’s duty to set the breakfast table, bring up the food and drink, wait on table, and clear after the family has finished – a pattern which is repeated at luncheon, dinner, and with the evening tea tray just before bedtime. After each meal he supervises the cleaning of all the silver, china, glasses, and serving dishes and makes sure they are put away in their proper places.

Between meals, he takes up his other duties. He take care of the master's clothes, laying out what he'll need next, cleaning or brushing or mending, and straightening the dressing room. He checks the wine cellar, tending to any wines which may be off in taste or color, or bottling wines which were delivered in casks. He polishes the silver (no tarnish-proof strips in those days!), and he’s on duty to answer the door from morning till night. After the household has retired, he makes sure all the menservants have gone to bed, then locks up the doors and windows before (finally!) retiring himself.

By the Victorian era, when paying calls over tea became a standard afternoon activity, the butler had it a bit easier. The fashion for Victorian ladies was to have a very attractive parlormaid who would answer the door and wait on the ladies and their afternoon callers at tea time. Since the butler was not required, he could rest for an hour.

Pay during the Regency period? From 30 to 80 pounds sterling per year – depending on the size of the family and the household staff. But he also received his master’s cast-off clothes, as well as the leftover pieces of the wax candles, once they were too short to burn! 

Sources: The Complete Servant, by Samuel and Sarah Adams, published 1825
Etiquette, by Emily Post, published 1922

Top Ten --Er, Six -- Pet Peeves in Historical Romances

I admit it, I'm a fan of historical romance. Always have been, even long before I started writing it. But I have to say there are some things that drive me straight round the bend and make me toss a book aside...

1. Getting the titles wrong. Lady Sarah Winchester isn't the same person as Lady Winchester is, and when the author gets it wrong, it's easy to dismiss the story entirely.

(Here's the skinny on how to handle dukes ... marquesses ... viscounts ... barons ... and baronets.) 

2. Getting the succession wrong. Inheritance of money is one thing, titles are another. Illegitimate sons could not inherit titles, period. Oldest sons could not be bypassed in favor of younger ones. Daughters could not pass along titles at all (there are a very few exceptions, by royal decree).

3. Getting the geography wrong. London to Gretna Green is 320 miles. Even if you figure an average speed of 10 miles per hour for a team of horses (and that would be tough to maintain over time, what with having to stop to change teams every few miles), it was impossible to do the trip in a day, much less overnight, during the Georgian or Regency eras. Which was the entire point, of course, since by the time a couple had been together and alone for such a long journey, the girl's reputation was ruined and irreparable. 

4. 21^st century characters who turn up in historical time periods. I don't mean modern-day characters who time travel. I mean people who were supposedly born and reared in the 1300s, or the 1500s, or the 1800s, but who think and act and talk and behave as though they just stepped out of Starbucks holding a latte and an iPhone, complete with modern sensibilities and politically-correct attitudes.

5. Magically-survivable injuries. Before modern antibiotics, being shot in the abdomen was pretty much a death sentence. There are real-life stories of survivors, yes, but they’re remembered because they were rare. Concussions were just as serious then as they are now, and being hit over the head hard enough to cause unconsciousness for a period of time is likely to lead to bleeding in the brain and death, not a nice long sleep and then waking up feeling just fine and remembering everything. (Author Eileen Dreyer, who was a trauma nurse before writing thrillers, does some great seminar sessions on medicine in historical eras and how authors get it wrong.)

6. Trusting other authors to get it right. I swear I’ve read a historical novel where the hero complained about the heroine feeding him pablum – but when I checked, I discovered that particular baby formula was invented in the 1930s instead. Oops.

What about you? What are your pet peeves, the things that make you toss a book aside? Please share!

Thinking about Perspective

I've been asked how, after writing so many books, I can make each set of characters different...

The best way to make each set of characters stand out is to look at things through THEIR perspective -- how THEY view the world.

What would THIS person see and notice most? What would THIS person think about? What would THIS person compare to whatever he/she is looking at?

A heroine who's five feet two will have a different reaction to a hero's height than one who's five feet eleven. A heroine who's a cook will have a different reaction to a hero's physical presence than one who's a physical therapist. A heroine who sells perfume for a living will have a different reaction to a hero's aftershave than one who's ... well, anything else. A heroine who's a musician will have a different reaction to the hero's voice than one who's not at all musical.

See what I'm doing here? I'm looking at the hero through the heroine's eyes. What does SHE see, feel, hear, sense that's different from what any other woman would see?

The same thing works in reverse, of course -- what is there about our hero which makes him notice specific things about the heroine?

Let's talk about how you could make this work!

Primping in the Regency

A fellow writer of historical romances asked this week: “What amenities did London hotels have in the 19^th century for the proper lady to refresh herself in relative privacy in front of a mirror?”

Now that’s an interesting question – and it’s one I don’t have a definite answer for.

The best sources for information about what happened in particular historical periods are diaries, personal letters, and artifacts – surviving locations and/or possessions. For instance, we know what sort of undies people wore during various historical periods because examples have survived. And we know the basics about how and where people relieved themselves, because a few of those places and pieces of equipment still exist. But figuring out whatever the 19^th century equivalent of a power room would have been – that requires figuring out context.

Personal hygiene isn’t something that people talk about, even today – at least not unless it’s something unusual. (I’m pretty sure that the first time I encountered a ladies’ room attendant in a posh restaurant, I mentioned it to my friends.) But powdering our noses is such a commonplace thing that we don’t give it a second thought – aside from the occasional complaint about inadequate facilities, I suppose. Our sisters in the 19^th century didn’t write about it in letters either, or note it in their diaries.

So I’m speculating here, trying to figure out context – based on hygiene, comfort, convenience, and taxes – of how a 19^th century lady would have powdered her nose.

The first question, of course, is what part of the 19^th century we’re talking about.

In the Regency period, personal hygiene most often involved an outdoor privy, or a chamber pot (or the equivalent) inside. This crucial piece of equipment was also called a close stool or necessary stool or toilet chair – here’s a picture of one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_stool

In the Regency era, there wasn't much incentive for designing or building special facilities for personal hygiene. Running water was rare, early designs for flush toilets often let sewer gases creep back into the room, and servants (to dump and clean those chamber pots) were inexpensive.  However, the resulting odors and lack of cleanliness meant that a lady probably wouldn't primp near her chamber pot.  Her dressing table would likely be across the room from the sanitary facilities, and it might or might not boast a mirror on the wall – because glass was expensive and hard to produce in large sheets, and it was taxed like the luxury item it was.

Because of the mirror tax, public hotels probably didn’t have many mirrors either. In their best bedrooms, possibly – which is why I think the lady who wanted to primp while traveling would most probably ask to be shown to a bedchamber.

It’s also likely that our proper lady would travel with her own hand mirror. Remember those sets that our grandmothers – or maybe we should say great-grandmothers, by now – kept for pretty on their dressers? A hand mirror, a brush, and a comb, all in the same pattern – those sets were treasured and handed down from mother to daughter. If she was carrying her dressing set, our lady could have primped just about anywhere that no one was looking.

By the mid to late Victorian era, flush toilets were more common, bathrooms were being included in houses and water closets built in public areas, and the mirror tax was defunct or nearly so.  So a Victorian lady could most likely have primped in front of a mirror in a semi-public area of a hotel – though I’m still not sure what that room would have been called. A ladies’ retiring room, perhaps?

If anyone has sources or speculations to add, I welcome your insights!

Visiting Harry Potter

On this rainy, gloomy day in Iowa, I got to thinking about my few days of glorious Florida sunshine -- and remembered that I hadn't downloaded all my pictures yet. Thank you to Entourage Member Extraordinaire Lynda Gail and Chef Joe, for taking me to Universal Orlando's Harry Potter World!













              

Lynda Gail (left) and me with the Hogwarts Express



Hogwarts Castle

Hogsmead Village ... complete with 
butterbeer and chocolate frogs!

The Next Big Thing

The Next Big Thing Blog Hop is a chance for the author to respond to ten questions about her latest book – and then pass along this “chain letter” to another set of authors who will post on their blogs the following Wednesday.

First, I’d like to thank debut author (and my former student at Gotham Writers’ Workshop) J.L. Hammer for tagging me to participate. Click the links below to find out more about J.L.’s romantic suspense, Outmaneuvered, featuring FBI agent Cruz Romero and suspect Amanda Price, and her Next Big Thing, the re-release of her romantic suspense novel, Blue Horizon. You’ll find her website at www.jl-hammer.com and her blog at http://jl-hammer.blogspot.com   

Here is my Next Big Thing! Please feel free to comment and ask questions.

1: What is the title of your book? The BirthdayScandal

2: Where did the idea come from for the book? I love writing triple stories – three heroes, three heroines, three romances woven into one book.  So writing about two sisters and a brother was a natural setup for me – they’re all dealing with their overbearing father while they’re coming up short in the love department.

3: What genre does your book come under? Spicy Regency-period historical

4: Which actors would you choose to play your characters in a movie rendition? I’m terrible at the movie game, so I’d love to hear what readers have to say about casting decisions. But I’d love to see Maggie Smith play the meddling old gossip Lady Stone, who appears in all of my Regency-period historicals.

5: What is the one-sentence synopsis of your book? The three Arden siblings – Lucien, Isabel, and Emily – go to their great-uncle’s 70^th birthday gathering, where he’s promised to make their lives easier. But instead of receiving the financial help they’re hoping for, each one of the three falls in love.

6: Is your book self-published, published by an independent publisher, or represented by an agency? My agent is Christine Witthohn of Book Cents Literary Agency.  This is my 85^th romance novel but the first one to be published by Montlake Romance. Previously I was published by Harlequin and Sourcebooks, and I also write non-fiction.

7: How long did it take you to write the first draft of your manuscript? It takes me about four to six months to write each of my historicals – with at least that much recuperation time between books.

8: What other books would you compare this story to within your genre? Since I write complex stories involving three heroes, three heroines, and three romances ongoing within the story, the structure is actually more like women’s fiction than like the usual romance.

9: Who or what inspired you to write this book? (a) the mortgage. (b) chocolate. (c) more chocolate.

10: What else about your book might pique the reader’s interest? After writing 80 sweet traditional contemporary romances, I took a wild turn and changed everything I could – short to long, sweet to spicy, current-day to historical, US settings to England… If I could have thought of anything else to change, I probably would have. Readers may be interested to  know that even this very dramatic change in story uses the same basic tools in writing. Also that I researched the Regency period for decades before I felt comfortable enough with the setting to actually write about it.

Below are the links to the next chain of authors, who will be posting next Wednesday. Be sure to bookmark their sites and add their new releases to your calendars. Happy Writing and Reading!

Elke Feuer is a debut author with Crimson Romance. In For the Love of Jazz, she brings Jazz Age Chicago back to life when a contemporary heroine finds clues to her family’s past. Find out more at http://elkefeuer.com , or follow her on Twitter.

Lynda Haviland writes paranormal romance featuring Egyptian gods and goddesses living in the contemporary world. Find out more about the Age of Awakening series, including her new release, Immortal Dominion, at http://lyndahaviland.com

D. L. Carter writes offbeat, screwball comedies -- including Ridiculous, set in the Regency period, and her newest release, First Destroy All Giant Monsters (now really, with a title like that, how can you NOT pick up the book?) You can keep up with her current work at http://funwithghoulsandgoblins.blogspot

Elaine Orr writes a cozy mystery series featuring real estate appraiser Jolie Gentil, set on the New Jersey coast. Her newest release is Any Port in a Storm. Find out more at www.elaineorr.com or www.elaineorr.blogspot.com

Laura Navarre writes Tudor-era (and earlier) historical romance, often with a paranormal touch. Her latest release is By Royal Command.  Find out more at www.LauraNavarre.com or  Facebook.