Historical Costuming

I had a wall of Rubbermaid containers in my room, four long, 3 high, for about two years.

My husband hated it.

Let it be known that it was his fault. He brought them in from the garage because he wanted me to sort through them and thought putting them there would inspire me to get it done. He was wrong--I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Besides the fact that going through them would lead serious allergies and require a good days commitment to having no bedroom, it also meant coming to terms with the fact I would never wear those costumes again. That's right, those bins were FULL of Elizabethan lower nobility costumes, early reign and the remnants of the fabrics I used in their construction. Each gown was the product of hundreds of hours of work, much of it by hand. Each gown was a reminder of the wonderful times spent at the Renaissance Faire* as a lady in the court of Queen Elizabeth. Each had been meticulously researched, designed, and constructed based on portraiture of the period, Patterns of Fashion 3 by Janet Arnold, and the guidance of costuming mentors within the guild. These gowns (I had a few men's suits too) represented some of the first times I let myself be proud of work I'd done. Yes, there were plenty of mistakes, but when I wore them I felt accomplished. No false humility--I'd made something from nothing and I felt great about it. (Note: not all of the costumes were 100% historically constructed. I made modifications for the ease of dressing since I don't have servants.)

This year I finally went through the boxes and, as I knew I would, gave almost all of them away. I donated them to a dear friend who will see they find good homes and, hopefully, be worn again. It's bittersweet, but it's okay. I keep telling myself that. At least my bedroom has a functional window again.

I may not be participating in living history events for the time being, but my love of costuming has an outlet in my historical romance. You would be amazed at how much I had to cut out of Courtly Pleasures to make it readable. The False Lady Beatrice, my current work in progress, has a mixture between courtly fashions and the functional clothes of the peasantry. I'm having fun with the dichotomy and what that says about Beatrice's identity.

Just for fun, here is a short video showing the steps to dressing Queen Elizabeth I.

Fun random facts about my costuming adventures:

1. I once constructed a corset with a lace up front flap to accommodate nursing.
2. I made my 18 month old a full dress (coral pink, pictured below) and, since it was so small, built it as a single unit. It worked out great so I decided to make one for myself (also pictured below). The dress weighed over forty pounds and was so unwieldly it was difficult to store and required three people to help me dress. Bad idea.
3. I sewed pockets into my petticoat and could access them from the front split in my overskirt. 
4. I used large zip ties as boning in my corsets and plastic coated laundry line wire on my farthingale. Super not period.
5. My favorite bumroll was bright yellow and looked like a banana. I called it my butt banana.
6. I kept one costume, the one that came in first place at my faire's costume competition. There's no way it will fit now, but it might someday. Maybe. 
7. My computer doesn't recognize the word 'unwieldly.' Farthingale and bumroll make sense... but unwieldly? It's not an unusual word.

My daughters, ages two and three. I did not include oversleeves, corset, or farthingale because, you know, the age two and three thing. I wanted these to be light, breathable, and to be able to throw these in the wash

Circa 2009

I am in the gray dress (it's the awkward, one-piece dress mentioned above) dancing with an actress portraying Mistress Anne Vavasour.

*Faire: yes, I know it's spelled wrong, but that's how my Ren faire spelled it to make it olde English-y.

Love Thyself

This is, in part, about the word "fat," but mainly about allowing yourself to be beautiful.

I first discovered I was fat when I was 13 and my mother put me on a Slimfast diet. I was 5' 7" and about 130 lbs (which is actually underweight for that height). My body was still figuring itself out and it would later settle in a curvaceous 38-24-36... and I still thought I was fat. I wore over-sized clothes and, even though I was in dance and had legs of iron, never wore shorts. By the end of my senior year I figured out that I shouldn't be ashamed of my body, but I still thought I was fat because I wasn't skinny.

I haven't used the word "fat" to describe myself or anyone else in over fourteen years. What changed? I had a daughter and an epiphany about self-love. I am not fat, I have fat. I have more fat than I should for my height and it's not healthy, but it has nothing to do with how I face the world or my sense of worth. If I want to lose weight it is for health, not to meet someone else's standards. I can feel more attractive at a size 16 than I did at a size 8. When I hear someone complain about or judge someone for being fat I cringe at the word as strongly as I might if they used a racial slur.

I now have two daughters, both young teens and nature is working itself out. One has very, very low body fat, that's how she's built. One is more like teenage me, and that's how she's built. I have tried to promote portion size and nutritional values, but I don't teach calories. They know I am overweight and need to exercise for my health. They encourage me to exercise because they love me, not because I should meet some standard of beauty. I don't want "fat" to become part of their regular vocabulary or value system. They will face plenty of struggles in their lives without the ever-present specter of being fat or being afraid of being fat following them constantly.

How does this relate to writing:

Romance heroines are beautiful... but what does that mean? In my first draft I wrote Frances LeSieur as so-so (with or without the makeover). Not unattractive, but not stunning. I wanted the sense of her beauty to shine more and more and Henry fell in love with her. My beta reader's feedback said I should change that. Why? Because romance has that element of fantasy full of beautiful people.

The rest of my heroines are, so far and forevermore will be, beautiful. That doesn't mean they will be created from cookie cutters from Playboy.

Beauty is so many things. Frances is a size 8-10 and has a body that has born five babies. Mary is too slim to be fashionable then but would be adequate today in a size 2-4. In her era, however, this was not a positive trait. Jane (coming soon in Courtly Abandon) is petite and curvaceous in a way that wouldn't fit most clothing today--she would have to shop in the petite plus size section (she is, in fact, more in line with the standard of beauty appropriate to the era). While none of these ladies are a 2XL (yet) they are beautiful in their own ways and highly attractive to their mate.

None of them worry about being fat. None of their friends complain to them about their fat legs or pooch or flabby arms. It's a non-issue. Mary is a little self-conscious about a very toothy smile and tries to emphasize her bust, but, out of all of them, she might bemoan NOT having more girth.

If I had to whittle this down to my main points it would be that beauty is subjective and something we force on ourselves, so why destroy it with self-hatred? Romance novel heroines may be figures of beauty (in the book, based on the book's standards) but even there there is no standard they all meet. They find what is beautiful about themselves and learn they are worth the effort of claiming happiness.

I have fat and I am not thin, but I am me I am beautiful in my way.

VENUS, AN ORGANIST AND A LITTLE DOG BY TITIAN (1488-1576)

To Reverance or Not to Reverance

So many historical romance readers are familiar with the curtsy. It is woven throughout period stories and almost is the norm for anything that is olde-timey (<== not a real word). However, just like the value of virginity, it is not true for ALL times. Particularly, not Tudor.

The curtsy is limited to women. It began it's life known as the courtesy which, as the word implies, was meant to show courtesy or respect to a better or peer. The woman would start feet in turn out, one behind the other, and lower themselves at the knee with their back straight. It is an action similar to a plié in ballet.

What we now know as the curtsy evolved from the older reverance. In Italianate Renaissance dancing there is a move called the riverenza. Like a curtsy, it is similar to a plié but with the feet parallel. This dance move marks the start of most of the Italian choreography of the period, and Italian dancing was considered very sophisticated and practiced by the English court. The Italian choreographer, Caroso, uses the riverenza while the French choreographer, Arbeau, uses reverance ( <== real word).

During this same period, the polite response to one's betters or peers was a reverance (often referred to in period pieces as a bow or curtsy, but the period term is reverance). This motion was done both by men and women. Stepping back with one foot, the other foot pointed and forward, the courtier would shift weight to their back leg and bend at the knee, holding the position until signaled to rise. This motion gave men an opportunity to "make a leg" and show off their calf muscles (they were wearing slippers with form fitting silken hose and slops that ended above the knee, their calf was the most exposed body part and consider sexy on a man). Women did the same, but only the toe of the slipper might be seen peeping out from the hem of her skirts.

A curtsy is faster, but a reverance is more elegant. It makes more a spectacle of showing respect. While the word was in existence in the 16th century, it was not the customary action for show of respect until toward the end of the 17th century. It is no longer in use, but it was during the Elizabethan era. Since I do not write in dialect, I try to use a scattering of period, though some are obsolete, words to give the flavor of the era. And, since what a modern reader may think of as a bow or a curtsy is not the same action as a reverance, I decided to stick with it. I deal with the foreign feel of the word by describing the action during the first example of it in each of my books.

When I first started writing fiction set in the Elizabethan era, I looked up the word. I wanted to make sure I was using the historically accurate phrase and action and not just adopting renaissance faire-isms. If you were to Google "reverance," they'd automatically show you results for "reverence."  You have to actually select the small print that says "search instead for reverance" in order to see references to it. They're there, you just have to actually look for them instead of accepting the first Google option that says it's a misspelled word.

I had to fight to keep it in the book and, while it might have been easier to give in to the popular terminology even if they're not right for the period, I'm happy I kept it. I did put due diligence into being true to the era and though I made mistakes, my choice to use use the reverance as the form of polite greeting was not one of them.

Mistakes in Print

Typos happen. The author reads through and gives a clean manuscript to the editor only for the editor to show just now messed up it still is. The author and editor fix the mistakes and it goes to a copy editor who finds even more. Then the galley edits come along and everything should be fixed, right? Nope.

And this is just about story inconsistencies, grammar, and flow.

I am solely responsible for the history and REALLY prided myself in taking that seriously. I researched saint days and weather patterns, period dress and beer recipes... I took the time and felt like a credible source when it came to history. Even if a reader doesn't like my story, at least I could say the history is sound.

When I discovered that I mislabeled Katherine Howard (I called her the third wife of Henry VIII) I cried. It's embarrassing and, regardless of everything I did get right, it completely destroys my credibility. It was something that didn't catch my attention in edits because this is an area of history with which I am ridiculously familiar.  I didn't double check the big facts the same way I, for example, looked at period inheritance law for a peer who was not yet an adult because I trusted myself. In the edits, I didn't notice. This is, perhaps, an example of not seeing the forest for the trees (if cartridge pleating and such are the trees, the Tudor dynasty is the forest).

So let me put this out there:

I hope to republish this title and actively want to fix any errors for the next draft. I'm keeping records as they've come to my attention. If you notice something, tell me. I'll appreciate it, I swear. It will all go to making a better book. You can email me on Goodreads or leave me a comment here on my blog.

Just for fun, here's a graphic from a Horrible Histories book I picked up at Hardwick Hall years ago.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Sneak Peak at a Deleted Scene

Many things about Courtly Pleasures changed throughout the writing process. The first version started out with a heavy focus on Frances's battle with depression and was written with all dialogue in Elizabethan (BBC style) dialect. I probably cut twenty or so pages of dress description. There was a maidservant named Bessie who's speech was so indecipherable that Frances, Mary, and Jane would just nod and pretend they knew what was being said. There have been a lot of changes, all for the better.

One such change was the removal of Blanche Parry's point of view. I consider her the fairy godmother of Frances's story. Blanche was a real historical character and I did my best to portray her with respect to the accounts of the type of woman she was. Her effigy at Westminster is featured to the left.

I cut this scene from the start of chapter fifteen, the morning after the masque on the river. If you haven't read Courtly Pleasures yet, do not read any more here unless you don't hate spoilers with the fury of a thousand suns like I do.

If you are interested in reading Courtly Pleasures, there is an Amazon link in the right side bar.

Cheers.

Click the "Read more" link below to read the deleted scene from Courtly Pleasures.

No Means No

Bodice Rippers.

It's a term I've used in the past to mock the romance genre. It comes from an era of romance where the young virtuous ingenue is seduced by the experienced rake. She fights her own desire and, when she gives in, it is often under duress. It's the scenario where she said no but her body said yes. Now I consider that disgusting, it's rape made titillating. It also summarizes the value system of an era where good girls couldn't say yes... and it taught men that no didn't always mean no.

But romance novels did not create this norm, they were a symptom of it. The female readers during this time responded to these books because it was a representation of the social values they were living. Sexual fantasy was just that, fantasy. But the limits on a woman's right to claim her own sexuality was not a fantasy.

These were the romances I started with. In fact, these stories impacted my view about love and sex. I'm still trying to get over that.

Today's romance novels still frequently have an alpha man. The difference between the old school tropes and today's characters is that he's butting heads with an alpha woman. It's a meeting of equals. Unless you are reading a niche book about BDSM or rape fantasy or straight-up porn, mainstream romance is about a woman who is competent and powerful in her own right. She may or may not be virginal. She may or may not be young. Or thin. Or white. Or heterosexual. And there is no concern about whether or not a woman can acknowledge her own desires. If she says no, it's because she means no. And, an equally important shift, she has the right to say yes.

Romance has changed as the writers have changed. While it is still a market with, predominantly, women writing for women, that is not exclusive. A good story is still a good story, and (imo) the only thing keeping the romance genre limited to a specific section of the bookstore and a specific demographic is the prejudice in place against the genre.

(While I could talk at length about the ingrained prejudice against romance based on sexism and the patriarchal norms still lingering that want to limit women's sexual agency, this is a post specifically about the changing face of romance.)

So bodice rippers have had their time and the romance industry has evolved. It's to a point where the term has been reclaimed by the industry in much the same way as racial or homophobic slurs are used by people within the culture to take away the power of the word. We have taken ownership of the insult and know that, as a genre, we are above it.

*Click the image above to go to the BuzzFeed link, "19 Things Fabio Is Actually Thinking On Romance Novel Covers."

Transportation and Communication Norms: Modern vs. Historical

It is hard for us, with our communication and transportation technology, to envision a world where someone in one town may never, in their life, visit another town that is fifty miles away. Stories in a historical setting have to balance a very fine line between historical accuracy and the modern reader's ability to suspend disbelief and commit to a story. Sometimes a concept is just so foreign that it is impossible to apply. In the case of Courtly Pleasures, the figurative distance between Frances and Henry can, in part, be linked to the literal distance.

Today it would take two hours and thirty-eight minutes to get from Holme Pierrepont (the basis for my fictitious Holme LeSieur) to Hampton Court Palace, depending on traffic. In the sixteenth century, it would have taken at least four days for a lady and her entourage to travel the one hundred and forty four miles -- and that's just travel time. This doesn't take into account the personal items (what a modern traveler might expect but on a much larger scale, literally. I had an Elizabethan gown and underpinnings that weighed forty pounds) and the household furnishings (I don't know about you, but I don't bring tapestries, bedding, beds, etc... with me when I travel) both for the wealthy traveler and their servants and their companions and their companion's servants... There is no guarantee of hospitality at the final destination and the hotels of the day consisted of rooms above a tavern, good only for a night's stay. And let's not forget able bodied gentlemen to act as outriders to both clear the way and ensure safety of the traveling party

And all this effort could only be successful if the roads were in good condition (no department of transportation to maintain a paved surface clear of potholes, flooding, and ruts) and free of bandits (no police force).

Travel was difficult and not undertaken lightly.

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The King's Post, by R. C. Tombs

I don't mention any of this in my novel, Courtly Pleasures, because it would take away from the story. However, without laying out the challenges of distance and travel, readers may not be able to put the enormity of effort the simple act of visiting London required into context.

The challenges of travel directly impacted the communication systems of the time. With no post office, any letters would have to be delivered by a paid courier and without any guarantee when or if they would reach their destination. My main character, Frances, would have had someone on staff that she sent with missives to her mother. That courier would wait and bring a reply, but he still had to deal with traveling.

Can you imagine if the only outside information you received was filtered by word of mouth or in inconsistent letters from relatives? You may hear about goings on in the world, but long after the events occurred. You may not know that your brother's wife died or that there was a battle in Scotland or that the Queen was sponsoring exploration in the New World. Today we suffer from an overload of information. If a celebrity wore a certain dress to an event, we know it immediately, even if we don't care. It's hard to imagine a time where we would be ignorant of anything outside the immediate bubble of our household or village.

We have such a wealth of resources at our disposal that it is hard to grasp a time where people did not. I recently, in an interview, stated that I like modern times because of flush toilets and penicillin. Add to that the easy access to any question at the tap of a keyboard and the fact that I can talk, face to face, with my sister in Switzerland. The world has become much smaller...let's hope the distance between us does also.

History Happened. Really. So Get it Right.

Allow me to jump back into the blogosphere with a short rant about historical accuracy.

I like writing with historical settings. I have written fantasy and struggle with consistency. I have to draw maps and create cultures and magical systems and naming traditions. When writing with a historical setting, it's all been done for you. Thank you, people who came before, for laying it out for me.

That said, research is required. No matter how much I think I know, I am constantly second guessing and double checking. Whatever the era, there is a plethora of resources available (online, for free!) to help fine tune the details of your novel. You don't want to fudge because you lose credibility as a writer, no matter how great your story may be.

The following points stand out to me both as a reader and a writer.

1. Language
When writing a story set within the Elizabethan Era, I found myself looking up the word Machiavellian. Certainly Machiavelli had existed and been published prior to this time. But even though the educated may have read his work, would his name have been equated with the theme of his writing? No. It's a more modern term and would be inappropriate to use. Word choice matters when it comes to making your setting real. I just read something set in early Victorian where they used the word "perp" in reference to the bad guy and it broke me out of the story completely.
To become comfortable with the word use of your chosen era, read work (primary sources) from that time. If you are uncertain, Wikipedia is a decent and easy resource to double check (I once looked up "cunt" because I wanted to confirm period crude slang for that particular body part. The table full of youth pastors meeting behind me became suddenly silent when it popped up in 100 pt font on my screen. Good times.)
Whether or not you choose to write in dialect (I did originally, but then an acquiring editor at Avon told me to nix that), make certain the speech patterns are consistent with the era, the class, and the setting. Consider period slang, contradictions, and forms of address while still making the dialogue accessible to the reader.

2. Names
I have found church records for marriages, baptisms, etc... from the years I write online. Even if you cannot find direct resources of the names of commoners, looking at the names of the royal families of  will tell you the trends of the time (people tended to name after the people in charge in homage/butt kissing). Depending on your era, historically people were not creative in the name department. Even today there are some countries that have lists of approved names. Learn about the culture of your setting. Are sons named after fathers? Do children take their mother's maiden name as a middle name? Does their birth date figure in to their naming (saints days)?
This can be frustrating because it limits creativity OR it could be a relief that you don't have everything to choose from. I've seen many authors nod to historical naming with the character's given name and then play with nick-names. Personally, I'd rather read about a real guy with an old fashioned name like Edwin than an archetype who goes by Rogue (just in case we didn't understand the archetype)

3. Norms
This is the biggest challenge for me. You want to write something historically accurate that the modern reader can relate to. If your main character is a woman (and mine always is) you have to be careful not to give her modern thought processes. Women's rights were limited but for a woman in that era, that would be all she ever knew and would be, if not content, at least resigned to her lot in life. Depending on the era you are writing there are very specific thoughts about religion, ethnicity, and class systems. Modern readers may see oppression or racism or elitism while the historical characters see it as the way of their world. How you write it will make all the difference. For the historical characters, these aspects of society were normal but can be off-putting for a reader. Finding the balance between historical views and modern sentiment is tricky. Have fun with that.
Being consistent with social norms extends to casual interactions, introductions, conversations public and private, forms of address, seating at the table, manners, class distinctions, etc... It's the biggest aspect of historical setting and what gives the read a feel of authenticity.

4. Costumes
Again, as with norms, it's hard to make historical fashions something the modern reader can comprehend. People have preconceived images of what is attractive now and it's hard to merge modern aesthetic values the historical. Consider your characters from the skin outward, being sure to include their undergarments (or lack thereof) and the correct names for the items. I read a book where the corset was referred to as a busk (a busk is the solid, removable insert in the center front of an early corset). It may be sexy by today's standards to have your heroine forgo her chemise beneath the corset, but consider that the chemise protects the outerwear from sweat and the skin from the coarse, heavy, boned corsets. Research. Look at portraits from the era, look at patterns for construction, and read about the way the garments would have been worn. You can find primary source fashion plates but many of the reenactor websites can be a good resource (they take their attention to accuracy very seriously).
I have to be careful not to make my books a treatise on historical costuming because I love the details. I end up trimming my descriptions down to the bare minimum. I want the reader to picture the character in the gown and how she feels, the impression she leaves, rather than the pleating at the waistband or the embroidery on the shoulder epaulets. It's actually hard for me, but no one wants pages and pages of dress description, they want the story. The dress only matters in how it furthers the character and plot, but it should be accurate.
One positive in understanding all the layers and the way they fasten is that it will help you also undress your character later. :)
The only area where (my personal feeling) it's okay to deviate from historical accuracy in costuming is in the area of hygiene (especially if your work is sexually explicit). Enough said.

1751 Countess of Coventry
A renowned beauty

Ultimately the story has to take dominance over all these details, but working in the true flavor of your chosen era will make the story richer and let the reader truly immerse themselves in your world. Granted, not every reader knows whether or not cotton would have been worn by medieval Scottish peasants (it wouldn't have) but you still owe them accuracy rather than hoping no one will care/notice. It's your name on the cover and your credibility at stake.

You may be asking what gives me to right to lecture on attention to detail in historical romance. If you don't want to take me seriously as a writer (I get that), at least consider this from a reader's perspective. I never read another book by the author that called a corset a busk.

My First Love

I pursued my bachelor's degree in history because of my love of historical costume. The way I'd learned history in high school, dates of wars and political events, did not speak to me. But the way I learned history through theater did. I loved how you can find out so much about a person based on what they wore. Social history, the people that led us to the world as we know it, still fascinates me.

I particularly fell in love with the Elizabethan/Reformation era courtesy of Shakespeare and renaissance fairs. The nuances of dress, the widening scope of the world, changing cultures, this was my focus in college. Because I felt history was a underwhelming subject in school the way it had been taught in my experience led me to becoming a teacher.

This era also led me to start and finish my first manuscript, then called Courtly Love. I've addressed this poor, overworked, Frankenstein of a book many times, but this time it's different.

This time I have a reason to make it right.

There is interest.

I'd stopped seriously pitching my historical romances a few years ago because I could predict the responses: the market is saturated and Elizabethan era is better suited to historical fiction than historical romance (and any other variation on this theme). I stopped even thinking about my historicals. I compartmentalized all the story lines that had built up in my mind and stored them away for another day and concentrated on thrillers. 

But interest, oh, that changes everything. The floodgates are open and I am in my element again. My musings are full of grand manors and small villages, court, dancing, gowns, changing social norms... and the stories refuse to be ignored.

So, back to Courtly Pleasures go I. My challenge there is to smooth out the seams. I rewrote it because it was more women's fiction than romance and the two books that followed had more of a romance vibe so they didn't match. My mistake was not rewriting 100%. I tried to salvage parts I liked from the original but my writing style had evolved. Now I'm remedying that error and hope to finish with a manuscript I am proud of once more.

And on that, back to work.

Cheers!

This is my eldest, age 4ish at the time the picture was taken.

Words, Words, Words

I remember using the "n" word as a child (the 1970s) with my friends when "eeny, meeny, miny, mo" had different words than it does today. Yes, I'm white. No, I did not live in a white supremacist community/family. At the time I didn't understand the history or the impact; now the word gives me the creeps. As a teacher I've dealt with students who have used the word to hurt, knowing full well the impact, but having no empathy for the recipient. I like to think caring will increase with age (hooray for optimism).

Today I used the word "tinker" and the woman with whom I was speaking winced. Based on my life experiences, tinker was a commonly used word and, at the time, didn't seem negative -- as far as I knew, it's just what the travelling people were called. I gather by the reaction today that the word's connotation has changed. Or, perhaps, the word always was offensive and I wasn't aware (innocent ignorance - the same could be said of the word in the first paragraph). Either way, I was embarrassed by my usage today.

In my historical manuscripts I strive to use accurate words for the times. If I question something's historical authenticity, I look it up just to be sure I'm correctly representing the era. That said, values have changed since the fifteen seventies and the significance of historically accurate terms to the modern reader may seriously impact the reading experience. My most recent research was on the terminology for early condoms (one nickname: scum bag.... ewwww).

Bearing in mind the reaction of the modern reader, I do not put faggots on the fire. I do not call ladies wenches, but nor do I use the term to imply a woman of ill repute (wench meant female and was not rank or morality specific). As much as I avoid addressing the hygiene norms of time in order to maintain reader buy-in to the romance, I keep obsolete, though era appropriate words to the minimum. As far as words go, black people in Tudor England would have been referred to as Moors or Ethiopians (to name a few examples) and were present during this time, not only in a slave capacity. I wonder if, at that time, there was objection to the generalization and massive grouping of a people comprised of many tribal identities. Either way, during those times, they were certainly considered more socially acceptable than those known as Gypsies or Romany. That said, I would never disparage the Gypsy people, even in a historical when that would have been the attitude of the day. It could alienate the reader.

The question this brings to mind is: should I? Should I aim for historical accuracy despite the potential for reader reaction? I think the answer lies in whether I'm writing historical fiction or historical romance. I addressed abortion in my second manuscript, but I did so keeping in mind the modern reader response rather than the Elizabethan attitude toward it. I did this to be safe, if not true to the era (and worked it into my main character's arc of self acceptance). Today, abortion is controversial and involves the question of when life begins. All my reading of Queen Elizabeth's court shows there was no such moral quandary.

These same issues were prevalent when I performed in a living history group. How much history do you sacrifice to the need to be entertaining/non-offensive? It's a delicate balance that can be upset by a single word.

Diversification Confusion

There was a recent RWR article about the value of diversification in writing. There were a lot of good points made, that the market need is always changing and a steady brand might limit a good writer from bringing in a broader readership.

The problem I have run into with diversification is that my own writing identity is unclear. Voice is, I think, one of the most important aspects of a successful writer. Readers respond to good stories, yes, but they make a connection to the unique voice of the author.

When I was writing Tudor historical romances I knew my voice. There was a consistency from book to book that would help my readership greet each book with a sense of familiarity. Yes, each book offered a unique story, but the readers knew what they were going to get.

When I branched into paranormal stories in contemporary settings I redefined my voice. Contemporary meant less formal speech patterns. It allowed the characters to be less confined by social mores. My voice changed and I liked it. Alongside all of that was the fascination with the mystical, with the supernatural -- this influenced my voice too. With this, my identity as a writer shifted.

Then I switched into contemporary. The internal stakes became primary (which is surprisingly difficult for me--I really want to throw in an external problem) and the ancillary characters play a bigger role toward building the small town setting (which is like a character in itself.) Again, shift of voice.

The problem I am left with is: WHO AM I (the answer is not Jean Val-Jean)?

Many writers, to solve the problem with name branding, write under many pseudonyms. I have always been willing to do this, but thought my agent/editor/professional something-or-other would make that decision. I realize now that I should have made that choice when I started to split into multiple writer personalities. I think it would help me compartmentalize my various voices. When people ask what I write, I come across as having no focus and this is not an accurate assessment. When writing these different areas I have focus, I just have a hard time explaining the nuances of each genre.

So, here's my solution:
Historical =  something classic and more formal than my actual name, but with a surname in the first quarter of the alphabet (for shelving purposes). Suggestions are welcome. :)
Paranormal: Elaina Fay (for my 2 daughter's middle names, Elaine and Fay. Yes, I took a page from Stephanie Laurens). And...
Contemporary: Erin Kane Spock, my actual name.

Thoughts?

At least this will help me designate an identity to my diversified voices.

Touching the Past

It's official. I'm working on my new project.

"But wait," you ask, "haven't you been working on that for a month or so?"

Yes. Sigh. I've been doing the research, laying out my characters, and procrastinating about really starting. Sure, I wrote the first chapter --but I wrote this with the understanding that I probably would end up throwing it out when I got halfway through the project because feedback would finally convince me that I hadn't started the story where the story starts (because I never learn).

What makes me serious now? Well, I know this is silly, but I have a Pandora station all set as my writing soundtrack. I also, finally, know what my male lead looks like. What else? I've finished the research that gives my entire reason for using Ireland as my setting validity, so now I can start applying the story. (Side note: I'm using Pinterest as a mode for collecting my data. It's very visual and much better than my Word.doc cut/paste of URLs.)

And I have! I'm only about 4k words into the manuscript, but the story has everything it needs to grow at this point.

On that note, I should get back to writing. Liam is walking Gillian home, but she really doesn't want him too -- or does she? (she does, but she wishes she didn't, just in case you wondered)

BTW: Touching the Past is a temporary title. I needed something. It had to be sexy/suggestive, but also touch on the mystical elements in the story. 

Recycled Post: You Know You Write Historical Romance When...

I just came across this post, originally aired 5/31/2011 and decided it deserved to be re-shared. I added some of the original reader commentary.

You Know You Write Historical Fiction When...

1. You find yourself using "anon" in everyday conversation.*
2. You have words like "bumroll" and "farthingale" added to your spell-check's dictionary.*
3. You actually own a bumroll or farthingale.*
4. You programed auto-correct to change all "qe" to "Queen Elizabeth." *
5. You cannot stand perfectly good period movies because of the fabric choices.
6. You have become more lax about food sitting out because, hey, five hundred years ago there was no refrigeration.
7. You find yourself inserting interesting historical facts that have nothing to do with your story and feel like you are doing your readers a disservice when you delete the unrelated history lesson later.
8. You cannot stand reading a perfectly good historical romance because of the fabric choices (and, in a disappointed rage, may or may not have written a strongly worded letter to the author about his/her responsibility to the reader to portray their era with accuracy).
9. You understand why many authors do not touch on anything to do with hygiene.
10. You think nothing is wrong with having a beer at breakfast.

Just in case you wondered what a bumroll was.

Feel free to expand upon this list.

Sidenote: This post could also be titled, "You Know You Take Renaissance Faire Too Seriously When..."

* I write Elizabethan historical romance. Please feel free to insert whatever era appropriate terminology to make this relevant to your writing.

end original post .....................................................................................................................

Thank you to Kathleen and Mary for adding the following points:

Kathleen said... I love #8! OK, how about these:

11.You make up all sorts of reasons about how your widowed heroine is actually a virgin.

12.You figure out plausible excuses to explain why your widowed heroine (who is not a virgin) might respond like a virgin in a love scene.

13.You suspend reality to make every virginal heroine's first time fabulous and multi-orgasmic.

Interestingly, I can only think of sexual examples. Hmmmmm.... should I be worried?

I think #9 needs this add-on: "Not only do you understand, you agree and ensure that your main characters take more baths during the course of your story than most people of their era took in their lifetimes.

mary said...

OK, how about this:

You know the years each swear word came into common use.

You insist on capitalizing "she" when it refers to the Queen.

You know more about the laws of the 16th century than the ones today.

Am I on the right track?

 And Laura added a comment about her genre, mystery.

Laura M. Campbell said...

It's funny how serious writers take their genre and craft. I'm a mystery writer and I'm doing research on serial killers and I like to point out their is a distinction between psychopath and sociopath. I also know a thing or two about finger prints and trace evidence. The things swirling around in my head could make for a frightening story. 

Woman vs Lady?

I love historical costuming and fashion design. Love of costume is what led me to study history in college and, ultimately, to write historical romance. My first book, probably unpublishable, was too much a costuming lesson and I have since toned it down. But that doesn't mean I'm not as crazy about it as ever.

I watch the Oscars for the costumes... I mean, designer gowns. Who is she wearing? Vintage? Couture? What does it say about her? What does it say about our pop culture? I love it.

Which is why it was hilarious to me when Jennifer Lopez, one of the most classically beautiful and feminine stars today, quoted Edith Head. "Your dresses should be tight enough to show you're a woman and loose enough to show you're a lady," must be hard to say when your nipple is trying to break free. There is banter back and forth online, but I swear I saw a bit of aureola. Hey, it happens. It's just funny it was happening during that quote.

I'm not judging Jennifer Lopez. She is probably involved in her choice of gown to an extent, but more so are her stylists, PR people, the network, etc... She looked like a goddess, nipple and all. That dress was certainly tight enough to show she was a woman. To tight? Eh -- that's subjective. Would I wear it? HELL NO. Even if I had that body? Ummm, probably not.

Sandra Bullock's dress was not so tight as to question her ladylike qualities, but it was an odd cut with the mini padded shoulder caps, so the result was a very boxy upper body. Classy? Yes. Flattering? No.

 My least favorite has to be the dress worn by Melissa Leo. It looks like one of the billowy shirt's my mother in law wears, only floor length and sequined. Those shirts suit my mother-in-law, but don't belong on the red carpet. This image shows it to have some shape, courtesy of the sash at the waist. I don't think she wore the sash when she presented the awards and that dress was shapeless. If she wasn't showing she was a woman, maybe that means she's an uber lady.


As for positives, I enjoyed Cameron Diaz' nod to old Hollywood glamour. The dress was lovely, but she came across as monochromatic with hair, skin, dress all the same color. I loved Natalie Portman's polka dot gown. Lots of fun. I thought Octavia Spencer's dress was beautiful. It met the standards for the occasion and flattered her figure. My favorite was George Clooney's date, Stacey (whom I have not heard of before). Her dress had that same old Hollywood glamour as Diaz, but with pop. I love how the draping created a rosette. This would be my choice, should I have a perfect body and be invited to the Oscars (both equally plausible), only not in gold. I would look jaundiced. As to woman vs lady, Edith Head would have approved. I was disappointed not to see Kate Winslet or Nicole Kidman-- I don't think  they've ever worn anything I haven't loved.


Overall the silhouettes were streamline. Yes, there were full skirts, but slinky was the word of the day. Very few bright pops of color but a lot of metallics, and very few Bjork-esque risk takers. If the starlets are our aristocracy, our role models, how will this translate into the common woman's fashion? In all, the stars presented a positive body image, recognizing women that were larger than size 2 as worthy of praise. Not too much cleavage or too much leg. I don't recall any short dresses. Most hairstyles were elegant and in natural colors. This was a very safe year in regard to fashion risks. Was this influenced by the economic issues today? Or a growing conservative voice? 

If fashion is a symptom, I wonder what the disease is this time? I would have voted for conspicuous consumption in the past, but now?


And if you think this has nothing to do with my writing process, you are incorrect.

First Campaigner's Challenge: Flash Fiction

I'm excited to be participating in the first campaigner's challenge of Rachael Harrie's 4th campaign.

This short features characters from my Elizabethan historical romances. Mary, in Courtly Scandals, feels like a failure as a woman because she has been told she can't have children. In my epilogue, I show that to be untrue. Here, I give her the wonderful, drug free experience of natural childbirth with a reasonably clean midwife in 1573. Without further ado, here is my 223 word flash fiction submission. I tried, but I could not hit the 200 on the nose.

 

            Shadows crept across the wall of her confinement chamber. They were the only proof time was passing. That, and the contractions that wracked her body.

Frances stood by the bedside, her hand strong around Mary’s. “Breathe through it. It will be over soon.”

Mary closed her eyes, the orange glow of the candles filtering through her lids as she dragged in another breath. It wasn’t the pain that disabled her, but the fear. Opening her eyes, she silently scanned the faces of the women surrounding her. Were they afraid for her?

The pain that wracked her body had her upright in a nonce. The midwife hurried over, rubbing herbs between her hands before she crouched between Mary’s legs.

She nodded to Frances.

“It is time.” Frances sat on the bed behind her, pulling Mary’s back against her chest. “With the next one, bear down. Hard.”

Mary clenched her jaw, growling past her teeth as she pressed back against Frances. There was so much burning pressure..

“That was good, Mistress Fitzjohn.” The Midwife crooned, her hands a steadying force.

“The baby…” Mary started to cry as the next convulsion overtook her.

“Push!” Frances called from far away, just beside her ear.

Mary let the scream free as she spent the last of her strength.

“A girl!”                                                                        

             A wail filled the room as exhaustion over took her and everything faded.

The above image is at a small Renaissance faire in So. Cal, October of 2006. That is my youngest daughter, Clara, sleeping in my arms. Both daughters were products of c-sections, so I have no real experience with the pushing process.  :)


Addendum: I added the words in bold at the end so it didn't appear that I killed Mary off. Some of the comments made me realize that her death was implied. And yes, chances for death in childbirth was 1 in 4 for the mothers. That same percentage held for infant mortality. Then for deaths before the age of 5. And again for deaths before the age of 25. The good news is if you made it to 25, you were in it for the long haul and could live until your teeth fell out.

107, by the way. :)

And a Partridge in a Pear Tree

The current background of this blog, courtesy of The Cutest Blog on the Block, is themed after a partridge in a pear tree. The Twelve Days of Christmas is the theme to my second book, Courtly Scandals. I spent quite a bit of time researching the history of the song and how the usage and meanings changed over the years. Courtly Scandals is set over the twelve days of Christmas in 1572-73 at Whitehall Palace in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

My area of focus for my History BA in college was the Elizabethan Renaissance and the Reformation. After college I continued academic reading for personal enjoyment. I applied this information during my participation in Renaissance faire (I treated it as a living history experience - it's the teacher in me). It is unfortunate that I can no longer cite my sources at the drop of the hat. They all blur. But in all, my knowledge of the social history of the era is better than your average bear's.

In my writing, I make adaptations in order to make the history relatable. Little things. What we spell 'partridge' used to be spelled 'parteridge.' I thought that was a reasonable sacrifice of historical accuracy in order not to annoy the reader, but other than very minor details my history is solid. My first manuscript was requested by an editor at Avon who asked me to make changes and resubmit. I had written all the dialogue in a BBC version of old English (thee, thou, hadst, etc... reasonably understandable to the modern ear). She said it hurt the flow and made it difficult to relate to the character. I changed it - I wasn't sacrificing history, I was choosing my writing style. And she was right. "Say you want me" is much sexier than "Sayest thou doest want me."

I write this because I got (dun dun dun!) another rejection. As rejections go, this was great. It was a thoughtful review that showed me the editor had actually read my ms. She had some input on the story inconsistencies which I will address. The biggest irk, aside from being rejected, is that she questioned my history. She also said the speech read too modern. MAN! There is no winning!

Anyway, it's back to the starting block. I need to finish up Courtly Abandon then rework my query for Courtly Scandals. I will take a break from history for a bit and write my contemporary paranormal, I think, after this. My passion is the historical, but maybe it's time that I start listening to the rejections that have told me that the Elizabethan era is more suited to historical fiction than historical romance.

FUUUUUUUUUU..... DGE!

The other day I missed the last four steps and went straight for the tile. Our staircase turns at a 90 degree angle and 2 of the steps at that point are triangular and then there are 4 more before the ground floor. The shortest distance down the stairs involves cutting in at the narrowest point. I missed. Toe, ankle, knee, then caught myself and lay there for a moment, stunned. I also yelled, in slow motion, the big bad mamajamma of four letter words.

Now I do not swear a lot.  I am a teacher and insist on 'polite language' in my classroom (when students don't realize that bitch is not okay to use casually or that the term faggot is offensive and perpetuates bigotry and hatred, the fact that 'suck' is crude elludes them entirely). As a mother, my kids think 'stupid' is the "s-word." I have never dropped the F-bomb in their presence.  Until last week.

Luckily they were more in a panic by the yell and following groaning on the floor to pay attention to what I actually yelled.  Phew.

As a writer of historical fiction, I have to be aware of the vernacular of the era. In choosing not to include thee, thou, thy, etc... I made a point to give a sense of formality when appropriate and an old world flare by using terminology from the age. Including crass terms. The F-bomb was absolutely a verb for the same action as it describes today, however it had yet to evolve into an adjective (He's f-ing stupid) or noun (that F over there said....). Ass was actually a jackass = donkey. Arse was the word describing the modern day ass and used, mainly, for anatomical purposes verses name calling. When I do use cruder terms, I look up their etymology to make sure they were common place in my era and that I am using them correctly.

Introducing Edward Da Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford

 Genius, spoiled brat, lecher, drunkard, abuser, lawyer, dancer, wit, lover, husband, father, courtier, poet, play-write, murderer, politician... he was all these things.

Edward Da Vere inherited the earldom at the age of twelve upon the death of his father. His father had been royally screwed by the Dudleys into signing over ownership to many properties.  When Earl #16 died, Earl #17 was too young to inherit, so his remaining property rights went into wardship.

He was raised by William Cecil, who later became Baron Burghley. Cecil was not a loving man, but did value academics. Young Oxford was schooled extensively and became highly skilled in law (possibly so he could get his properties back).

At 21 he married Cecil's daughter, Anne. Anne, for whatever reason, wanted to marry Oxford. It didn't go well.

Oxford is quite a character. I use him in Courtly Scandals as my villain and in Courtly Abandon as my unwitting hero. He was many, many things, but I chose to show him as the brilliant brat prince. Entitled and bored. I grew fond of him while I was compiling a list of courtiers who would have been active at Queen Elizabeth's court between 1571 and 1574. He was there and within age range. I cast him as a minor but comedic character in Courtly Pleasures and it grew from there.

In the years I have been working on my Elizabethan books, Oxford has garnered more media attention. One of the current thoughts is that he might have been Shakespeare.  Yes, I have used that to my advantage.

I write this today because of a new movie coming out this year. Yes, Elizabethan period pieces come out from time to time, but this one is about (wait for it) Oxford!  This could be good and bad for me.  Good because I have a prominent historical character and a current person of interest as an almost primary character in my story and it might reach a larger market. Bad because tons of people may find him interesting and saturate the industry.  And my books are light romance,not heavy drama, so might not appeal to the same audience. Who knows? Either way, it's interesting and I can't wait to see it.

You Know You Write Historical Fiction When...

1. You find yourself using "anon" in everyday conversation.*
2. You have words like "bumroll" and "farthingale" added to your spell-check's dictionary.*
3. You actually own a bumroll or farthingale.*
4. You programed auto-correct to change all "qe" to "Queen Elizabeth." *
5. You cannot stand perfectly good period movies because of the fabric choices.
6. You have become more lax about food sitting out because, hey, five hundred years ago there was no refrigeration.
7. You find yourself inserting interesting historical facts that have nothing to do with your story and feel like you are doing your readers a disservice when you delete the unrelated history lesson later.
8. You cannot stand a perfectly good historical romance because of the fabric choices (and, in a disappointed rage, may or may not have written a strongly worded letter to the author about his/her responsibility to the reader to portray their era with accuracy).
9. You understand why many authors do not touch on anything to do with hygiene.
10. You think nothing is wrong with having a beer at breakfast.

Just in case you wondered what a bumroll was.

Feel free to expand upon this list.

Sidenote: This post could also be titled, "You Know You Take Renaissance Faire Too Seriously When..."

* I write Elizabethan historical romance. Please feel free to insert whatever era appropriate terminology to make this relevant to your writing.

X is for Xenophobic

Today people generally are not afraid of foreigners. Technology and communication advances have truly made the oceans between us insignificant. While people may hold prejudices and/or still think their particular country superior, they are usually not afraid of foreigners.

Not so in Elizabethan England.  Xenophobia was thriving.  With political and religious tensions (often from the same roots), foreigners represented different ways of life that appeared threatening. This applied, not only to people from foreign lands, but to Jews and Romany who had lived in England for generations.  To quote the wisdom of the murderous mob in Disney's Beauty and the Beast, "We don't like what we don't understand, in fact it scares us," Elizabethans of every rank held and active dislike and fear of foreigners.

When I have tried to understand it in order to portray it accurately, but in a sympathetic light (considering I am writing from their pov) I pulled from my own experience with people who take a difference of opinion as a personal insult.   If the English people felt that different lifestyles/traditions/opinions/etc were, by their very existence, criticizing their own way of life, they might take umbrage and feel threatened. Again, this is just conjecture.  In the end, I have always minimized xenophobia. All three of my books involved the court of Queen Elizabeth and include the foreign ambassadors.  I treat them with the public respect they would have received (in most cases) and avoided the private derision.  The xenophobic attitude has never been central to my story and, therefore, was not necessary to include.

Today most educated people treat other cultures with respect, but that is not to say generalizations and stereotypes do not exist. I like to think they are good natured (for the most part).  My brother in law is British and pictures my husband in cowboy boots.  To be fair, my husband pictures my brother-in-law with a monocle.  While neither man wear boots or monocles, my British brother in law does own a hat collection and only would wear tennis shoes for tennis.  My husband does drive a full size truck and own a gun safe for his collection of arms.

This video is a far cry from xenophobic attitudes, but it does involve some stereotyping.  I really enjoyed it and plan to ask my brother in law about the significance of the fig newtons.  I hope you enjoy it. :)

You’re watching Landline - Royal Wedding Hangover. See the Web's top videos on AOL Video