The Happily Ever After

I’ve been thinking about what happens after the Happily Ever After.

It’s a given for me that a romance must have a happy, satisfying ending: I wouldn’t want to read a book where the hero and heroine didn’t end up together (and if I don’t want them to get together, the book obviously isn’t working for me). But there’s a tendency, especially in series, to trot out the happy couple years after the fact, just to show them happy! and healthy! and fecund! and not having any kind of conflict whatsoever. They have nothing but beautiful, bright-eyed children, who brush their teeth without being told to do so.

Now, there are some things I would not do to a prior hero and heroine. I wouldn’t make them divorce. I wouldn’t make them separate. I wouldn’t kill one of them off. And I would never, ever, have one of them cheat. They all live to a ripe old age, and they are never, ever unhappy because of their marriage.

But part of what I am trying to do in writing a romance is not just to write about a couple who manages to solve whatever problem du jour (du livre?) that I conjure up. It’s to convince the reader that the couple has grown to the point where they are capable of solving all of the things that life throws at them. That they can face anything–financial downturns, difficult children, the death of parents, misguided siblings–so long as they do it together. I want you to believe that in the face of a world that is not always kind, fair, or good, that their life will be kind, fair, and good, because they have each other.

To me, that’s what real romance is about. Not the flowers or the chocolates or even the sex. It’s about knowing that the world will always be a better place because that person is by your side.

Trial by Desire is a book that focuses on Ned and Kate (who are the hero & heroine of the book). But Gareth and Jenny show up. And everything is not all sweetness and light in their life. They do have a problem. But that problem is one that they’ll face together. I worried when I wrote this. Was it violating some cardinal rule, to imply that my hero and heroine have worries after their marriage? Should they have had two sets of twins in the intervening years? Should their life read like an advertisement for a diamond commercial?

Ultimately, I decided that I was shortchanging Gareth and Jenny, if I implied that they were so weak as a couple that they could not handle a little stress in their life.

I’m thinking about this again, as I’m working on my fourth (fourth!) book, and have finally realized that the book has to intersect the life of my third-book-heroine in a way that will make her very, very unhappy. Anything else would be cheap.

Can I do that? Is it allowed?

I think I’ve just decided that it’s not only allowed, it’s required by the mechanics of the fourth-book plot. Whatever happens, Margaret’s husband will stand by her. They’ll work through it together. And I hope my readers will never, ever doubt that they have a happy marriage–even if not all times in the marriage are equally blissful.

So what do you think? Would it ruin a prior book for you, if you found out that the couple faced conflict in the future? How much fairy tale do you need in your happy endings?

Winners (final)

Here are the winners from the last post, a week ago.

  • Goddess of the Hunt, by Tessa Dare: Angela
  • Bound by Temptation, by Lavinia Kent: Mary K
  • The Perils of Pleasure, by Julie Anne Long: Jacqueline C
  • What Happens in London, by Julia Quinn: Monica
  • Ten Things I Love About You, by Julia Quinn: peggy h
  • Captive of Sin, by Anna Campbell: Julie
  • Nine Rules to Break when Romancing a Rake, by Sarah MacLean: ms bookjunkie

Congratulations!

One last batch of winners!

Okay. So this is the last batch of multi-book winners. From here on out, I will not procrastinate on the giving away of books, not in the slightest. And that’s a good thing, because in September and October, we have some amazing books to look forward to–and I will definitely need an entirety of a full post to highlight their awesomeness.

(Here’s a hint: we’re going to start with a historical romance adventure story that takes us from the expected world of Victorian England… to Outer Mongolia. Seriously. Outer Mongolia. The book so completely, utterly rocks–and the second book in the series just got a starred review from Publisher’s Weekly–and honestly, I feel like a kid in a candy store right now, especially anticipating the fourth book. I’m so excited to be able to talk to people about this series!)

In any event. Ahem. Before I get ahead of myself, here are the winners from the previous post:

  • Twice Tempted by a Rogue, by Tessa Dare: Theresa Romain, MaryK, Aislinn
  • Crazy for Love, by Victoria Dahl: peggy h
  • The Forbidden Rose, by Jo Bourne: Chelsea B
  • Money, Honey, by Susan Sey: Kim
  • The Cinderella Society, by Kay Cassidy: Susan B

If you’re a winner, e-mail your snail mail address to courtney@courtneymilan.com and I will get it out right in the mail.

This brings me to my last set of giveaways. As you may know, if you go to romance conferences (Romantic Times, RomCon, or RWA) you end up getting a handful of free books. They just can’t throw books at you fast enough! Of course, I read voraciously and many of the books I’ve gotten (for free!) I already own. Some of them, I have multiple copies! But some of them are so good that I can’t resist picking up another copy, knowing that I can introduce it to someone else who loves historical romance. So here’s what I have:

  • Goddess of the Hunt, by Tessa Dare. (Got this from RT, where it won a well-deserved award for Best First Historical).
  • Bound by Temptation, by Lavinia Kent. (This is autographed–and a very sexy book, where the “bound” part is quite literal.)
  • The Perils of Pleasure, by Julie Anne Long. (Also autographed–JAL is one of my favorite, favorite authors, ever.)
  • What Happens in London, by Julia Quinn. (Winner of the RITA, and the book that got JQ into the Hall of Fame. And one of the funniest, most hilarious books ever. Don’t miss the pigeons.)
  • Ten Things I Love About You, by Julia Quinn. (Quite possibly the winner of next year’s RITA, too–I did just accidentally buy a second copy of this.)
  • Captive of Sin, by Anna Campbell. (This book is also autographed–and it’s both hot and heartwrenching, in inimitable Anna Campbell style.)
  • Nine Rules to Break when Romancing a Rake, Sarah MacLean (autographed–and I can’t tell you how much I love this book! Sarah is definitely a historical author to watch, and if this book is her historical romance debut, I can’t wait for book #2… and #3… and #4.)

I’ll pick winners on Wednesday or Thursday. Enjoy!

Winners, and more giveaways!

As I mentioned in my last post, I am dreadfully behind on giving books away. So here are the winners from the last post:

  • One Dance with a Duke: azteclady (yay! She brought me cookies at the RWA signing, when I was in desperate need of blood sugar–this is random.org karma in action!), Rose, and Tessa K.
  • The Irish Warrior: Jacqueline C., Booklover1335
  • Skin Tight: Stephanie, Noelle Pierce
  • Tempting the Marquess: Vi
  • His at Night: Llehn

These are all the winners from two days ago. If you won, congratulations, and send your snail mail to courtney@courtneymilan.com. But don’t be dismayed if your name is not listed! I have more books to give away… so many more books. Here’s the second (of three) batches of books I’ve intended to give away.

  • Twice Tempted by a Rogue, by Tessa Dare. This is the second book in Tessa’s brilliant Stud Club series. It’s brilliant for a number of reasons–one is that you don’t have to read the first book to fall in love with the second. I think that out of the entire series, I related to Meredith as a heroine more than anyone else. She’s a widower, and one who has worked hard to make sure that her town stays together. The heart and soul of the town is her inn–a waypost that she cares for quite well, but knows that people only stop there if they have no other choice. It’s warm, comfortable, homey–and it will never be as swank as the posh affairs in Bath or Bristol. But she doesn’t let that discourage her, and she’s determined to do as best as she can under the circumstances.

    Understandably, she is wary when the local lord–who has been absent all these years–sweeps into town. He threatens the inn, and the livelihood of the villagers–and her own sense of comfort. I loved this book, and somehow, again, I ended up with three extra copies of it, not counting my own paper copy and the e-version I bought. How does this happen? I’m not sure, but my inability to say no to Tessa’s books is your gain!

  • Crazy for Love, by Victoria Dahl. It’s no secret that I adore Victoria Dahl, and Crazy for Love is no exception. Chloe Turner, the heroine, is That Woman: the woman who everyone believes is so crazy that her own fiance faked his death to escape her antics. Of course, she completely doesn’t deserve the sobriquet of “bridezilla”–but still, it’s given to her.

    But as wonderful and relatable as Chloe is, Max, the hero, is who really makes this book. I’ve known a lot of guys like Max–in fact, I think there’s a little Max in every good, dependable man. Max is a really good guy. Completely reliable. Utterly dependable. So dependable, in fact, that people just depend on him, without thinking of the stress that this puts him under. So when he meets Chloe–not knowing how she’s been labeled by the media–to him, she’s a restful dream come true. She doesn’t need a caretaker. She doesn’t have a raft of problems. She’s just a nice, wonderful girl who really likes him.

    How they deal with the complications that arise is what makes this book so engrossing. And yes, Max is totally, utterly adorable. This is how I somehow ended up with an extra copy.

  • The Forbidden Rose, by Joanna Bourne. Joanna Bourne is one of those writers where it’s almost kind of unfair that she’s writing. I mean, let’s face it. She’s like a genius. I say “like” a genius, because, in fact, the only reason she would not be counted as a genius is because she’s beyond that. The Forbidden Rose is set in revolutionary France. For anyone who complains that there is not enough history in historical romance, Jo Bourne will take your complaint and raise you one. And for anyone who believes that history in historical romance serves only to interrupt the romance and the plot, Joanna Bourne will dance in little circles around your belief, and then show you how it’s done.

    Seriously. The ending of this book is freaking brilliant, and the beginning and the middle are utterly amazing. And notice that I’ve said almost nothing about the book itself–what is there to say? She’s brilliant. I have an extra copy of this, and you all should want it.

  • Money, Honey, by Susan Sey. So, basically, I adored this book. It’s about an FBI agent and a (former) crook. Both of them have a substantial path, that brings them to the place where they are. Elizabeth Brynn, the FBI agent, is a consummate professional–one who believes very strongly in the role of law and justice in society. She’s absolutely committed to her job, and knows that she is making the world a safer place. Patrick O’Connor is a former crook, and Liz isn’t necessarily sold on the former. His sense of morality seems fluid at best, and (at least to her) completely self-centered.

    Right there, you can see that you have some incredible conflict, and that sparks will fly between them. But what takes this book beyond the typical meet-cute plus sparkling conflict, and into the territory of Really Awesome is the depth of the characters. Liz isn’t just any old FBI agent, dedicated to her job Because. Her character is layered and rich and real, and the plot is designed to strip those layers away, one by one, until they shine. Patrick isn’t the selfish, money-grubbing crook that he appears to be–he has a very firm sense of family, and as the book passes by, you quickly begin to learn just how much he’s willing to sacrifice for the ones that he loves. As the book goes by, both of them have their conception of self challenged by the other. And like all my favorite books, this one ends with both of them realizing that love has made them bigger, not smaller, and enlarged their horizons, not shrunk them. Both Patrick and Liz end up in stronger positions than where they started. And that I truly, truly loved.

    I also have a copy of this to give away.

  • The Cinderella Society, by Kay Cassidy. This is the only YA in the batch I’m giving away right now. It’s a fabulous girl-power book, with a very pink-pink cover. I have to admit that the cover gave me some trepidation, because I am not a pink-pink girl. But inside, the book isn’t about wearing pink. It’s about finding ways to express yourself in a way that’s true to yourself, about empowering women, and about believing that you can be the best. It’s also a book about a secret society of girls–well-liked girls, no less!–who go around being nice to people. This is such an awesome inversion of the usual popular kids=jerks formula. So many times you see YA books where pretty and popular are used as caricatured short-hand for “evil,” and it’s refreshing to see a book recognize that you don’t have to be mean to be well-liked.

    I have a copy of this to give away, too.

Now, I know you are wondering: Courtney, how is it that you get these copies to give away? Answer: Sheer book acquisitiveness. When I read a book I like, I end up buying it. Multiple times. Just… don’t ask. And don’t tell my husband.

On reviews and dentistry

This post is inspired by an article in the Romance Writers’ Report, which suggests (among other things):

Got friends? Got an e-mail list from your last high school reunion? Then ask them to go onto such sites as Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads, and Shelfari and post reviews of your book.

I’ve been thinking about reviews for a while–ever since I was on a panel discussing reviews at RomCon, where someone suggested that the problem with negative reviews is that reading is subjective, and a book that one person hates another might love. The implication, of course, was that you wouldn’t want to dissuade that second person from reading the book. I don’t disagree, of course–I firmly believe that people should judge for themselves, sometimes with or without the aid of proxies.

But there are three assumptions that I can filter from these various points, and they are closely related. The first assumption is that people seem to think it is better to have lots and lots of positive reviews of a book–the more positive reviews, the better. That somehow, a reader is more likely to buy a book if it has nineteen five-star reviews and zero one-star than she would be to buy a book that had eighteen five-star reviews and one one-star review–or ten five-star reviews and nine one-star reviews.

At some level, this is correct: a book that is universally panned by everyone is probably going to lose sales. (This is, by the way, a Good Thing for everyone but the author and publisher of that book. Bad books waste readers time. Bad books make reading feel like a less valuable activity to readers, and makes them more likely to substitute other activities, like watching TV or knitting sweaters. As an author, I want historical romance to be filled with awesome, incredible books, because that is how we create a genre that readers hunger for. I want all the crap to die on the vine–bad books turn readers away from the genre as a whole. Luckily, historical romance is by and large filled with awesome, incredible books.)

But back to the subject at hand: with the exception of those very few books that everyone hates, it seems to me that even the dimmest readers can’t help but notice that enjoyment of a book is subjective. Likely they know this from personal experience. We’ve all read books that were praised to the heavens, that we didn’t personally love; and we’ve also read books that a friend hated, only to discover that we loved it. But even if the reader somehow didn’t notice that reading was subjective up until she was faced with an Amazon page, don’t you think she’d figure it out based on the fact that there were different reviews, saying utterly different things?

This leads me to the second assumption. A person who claims that ten five-star reviews from high school friends (who have not read the book) is valuable as promotion must believe that all five-star reviews are equal. They are not. We have all seen utterly useless reviews from friends and family. They look like this:

“Author B. Obvious writes a masterpiece of literary genius! It is the best book I have ever read in my entire life. The plot is amazing. Buy three copies.”
–from reader I. R. Obvious, II

When I read reviews like that, I automatically discount them. Worse: I discount every positive review that I see for that book, because I know the author has trolled friends and family to write for her. I assume that others do the same. In fact, I know that others do the same. Reviewers and authors get called out on this kind of bad behavior all the time.

This leads me to the third assumption. If you believe readers will be swayed by your dentist’s stupid review of a book he hasn’t read, you believe that readers lack the ability to critically analyze sources. If you believe that readers do not understand that reading is subjective, and so will knee-jerk reject a book on the basis of a few negative reviews, you believe that readers lack a fundamental understanding of human nature. In short, if you think that readers are swayed by sheer magnitude and star-number of reviews and nothing else, your fundamental assumption must be that readers are stupid.

Now, I realize that intelligence is a difficult thing to judge, and that reams and reams of paper have been employed in attempts to determine smarts. But–you may not know this–there is at least one definitive test of stupidity that has been universally employed. I have it on very good authority (well, mine–on this blog, that is the ultimate authority) that every single person who decides to read a book by Courtney Milan is not stupid. In fact, studies have proven that my readers are basically all at genius-level intelligence, and usually higher. Even the ones who don’t like my book.

And so it really, really bothers me that people think that they need to promote using the underlying assumption that their readers are stupid.

My readers aren’t stupid. Deep down, the greedy portion of me wishes you all were–it would make it so much easier to promote my books if you just blindly followed others like sheep! If I could lead you to the bookstore with reviews from my dentist, don’t you think I’d have done so? (Also, I would have visited the dentist sometime in the year before my release.) But alas. My readers are too smart to be fooled by such tactics.

And so, instead, I have to engage them. I have to provide content. I have to–gasp!–write books that hopefully, they will want to read. And–I confess it–even though my cold, avaricious heart wishes I could fool you into buying my books with reviews written by my mom, it’s a little more satisfying to have you do it because you, you genius you, think that it’s a good idea.

P.S. I realize I can’t convince anyone to buy a book with a review by my mom, but Mr. Milan is another story. His reviews are made of gold.

Catch up, giveaway, et cetera!

So I am woefully behind. I have a stack of books many books high that I need to give away–and after I missed the first week of them (there were three that week!) the stack has only gotten larger, and my resolve to tackle the pile has shriveled to pea size. Nevertheless, over the course of the next week and a half I will be getting rid of Every. Single. One.

Seriously. You should believe me.

So, first things first. I am woefully late in announcing the winners from the Double Mistress giveaway, which was, like, two months ago:

Bonnie Ferguson: Susan Gee Heino’s Mistress by Mistake
Collie: Maggie Robinson’s Mistress by Mistake

And speaking of two months ago! June was a month that saw a lot of really amazing romances. I meant to post about all of these books individually, and give them away individually, but they were all released on the same day and in my fluzzombottomnation (that is totally a word) about not deciding which to post about first, and which to do when, I ended up not posting about any of them at all, which was a wretched state of affairs. In any event, here goes: June giveaway, in August!

  • One Dance with a Duke (three copies). I loved Tessa Dare’s first trilogy a lot–but in all honesty, I think that in reading her second trilogy I can see all the ways that she has grown as a writer since then. One Dance with a Duke has all of the amazing writing, amazing chemistry, and amazing characterization that I saw in Goddess of the Hunt, Surrender of a Siren, and A Lady of Persuasion–but it also has something more. I’m not sure what to call it, but there’s a certain depth to this book–and to every book in this trilogy–that is new. This is not to imply that the other books were shallow–far from it! Just that I found myself identifying with Amelia far more strongly than I had identified with any of the characters in her prior trilogy. Amelia’s a woman who just wants to make things come out right. She wants her brother, who is hurting, to heal; when she meets Spencer, the hero of the book, she quickly intuits that his arrogance is a cover for a deeper social anxiety, one that she wants to make better. She’s an extraordinarily loving, and lovable, individual. What makes this book so wonderful for me is that Tessa shows how this quality is simultaneously both her greatest strength, and yet an incredible weakness. I really loved seeing Amelia’s journey, and I adored this book!

    I adored it so much I have three copies to give away. I did not buy them all at the same time, and yet every time I encountered this book at the store I ended up picking up a copy. It was irresistible–much like Amelia and Spencer!

  • The Irish Warrior, by Kris Kennedy. This book pretty much freaking rocked. If I were trying to describe it to someone, I think I would call it a medieval adventure. With explosions. Of both the literal and the hoo-boy-does-the-hero-rock-her-world variety. Finian is just an incredible hero–strong, stalwart, and once he realizes how much he wants and needs Senna, utterly willing to do anything and everything just to have her. He’s Irish, and Kris writes him with just that added bit of flair–no random bits of Irish dialect thrown in to fake the Irishness, but the rhythm and cadence of his speech just lulls you into the feel of the accent. You could sleep to the sound of his voice… If, that is, the rest of the story let you. But it doesn’t. Senna and Finian are in serious trouble: they are hunted by the English Lord Rardove. They’re going to win.

    This book beat me out in the 2008 Golden Heart–and I completely, utterly understand why. It’s compelling, incredibly so, and unputdownable. I have two copies of it.

  • Skin Tight, by Ava Gray. If you read Skin Game, you already know how awesome Ava Gray is. But, seriously, Skin Tight is a step above that. The hero, Foster, has an insidious, painful power: when he touches a woman, she stops seeing him. In his place, she sees the man she most wants. A less honorable man would doubtless take advantage of this power, sleeping his way through a swath of womankind. But to Foster, it’s a curse. Nobody ever sees him for himself. Nobody ever wants him for himself. The fact that every woman sees him as her fondest wish is a living nightmare. He doesn’t dare touch any woman, and the more he wants her, the more he knows he cannot lay hands on her–because once he does, he’ll destroy everything she sees in him.

    He’s a lonely, desperate man, and Mia Sauter–a brilliant accountant–is just the woman to see past his dark facade. I don’t want to say too much about this book, but I read it in one, long gulp, unable to put it down. And then when I was done, I went back and read parts again–and again–and again. This is the mark of true genius, and Ava Gray truly delivers.

    I have two copies of Skin Game to give away.

  • Tempting the Marquess, by Sara Lindsey. Sara is fast becoming my go-to author for sexy, sweet historicals. Tempting the Marquess is no exception. This book is laugh-out-loud funny and warm and at the same time deeply emotional. It’s about Jason Traherne, who is mourning his wife’s death, and about Olivia Weston–who is both fanciful and practical, all at the same time, who wants him both as knight in shining armor, and as the wretched man that he is. Olivia well and truly tames Jason.

    Also, this book contains one of my favorite tropes ever. I would say more, but it would be a spoiler. Let’s just say, all you need to do is tell me this thing occurs and I will walk to the cash register, book in hand.

    I have one copy of TTM to give away. In fact, I’m sure I have more, but I have no clue where the other copy went. I suspect Mr. Milan is reading it on the sly.

  • His at Night, by Sherry Thomas. Like all of Sherry’s books, His at Night is gorgeously written. But this book is more than that: it also has the most complex plot that I’ve seen from her yet. Lord Vere is a man who everyone in society thinks is an idiot. He’s not, though; he’s only pretending. He’s been pretending for years–so long that he almost doesn’t even remember who he is anymore, himself, and has had to invent imaginary friends to keep him company.

    Elissande knows everything about pretending. Her uncle–who is psychologically cruel, and inventively vindictive–has convinced everyone he is a saint and a martyr. She knows better. It’s not casual abuse that he deals in; he strikes hard, to the center of who the characters are. He keeps her aunt addicted to opium, unable to flee; every time Elissande begins to enjoy something, he takes it from her. And so when she meets idiotic Lord Vere, instead of seeing a moron, she sees escape: A man she can trap into marriage, and a marriage that will free her and her aunt from the nightmare that they live in.

    Lord Vere, of course, is not best pleased to be so used, and the path that the characters take to find the truth of themselves is truly awe-inspiring to watch.

    I have one copy of His at Night to give away.

So there you have it. You have 48 hours. Leave your name in the comments, listing any and all books you might want, and I will announce the winners on Thursday, and announce the next set of giveaways as well!

RomCon

So I was just at the brand new RomCon in Denver, and have a few thoughts about it. A number of friends asked me for my final verdict–it’s a new conference, and so people want to know–and I started to write it up to ten people individually, but realized there was nothing I was saying that I wouldn’t mind saying to the world at large in general, so I am just posting it.

Cons

This is the first time the convention was being run, and so there were two things that I noticed right off the bat, which I think were the major downsides.

First, I think the author:reader ratio was skewed too heavily in favor of authors. I think as word of mouth spreads, there will be more and more readers, but as it was, there were too many authors. I say this as an author: I felt we were too numerous on the ground.

Second, I think that the organization was not always there. Some events were clearly planned at the last instant. Rooms were changed. Times were changed. Both happened on more than one occasion without any notification to the people who were running the events/workshops. The website was useless as a sanity check to see where things were. (Also, speaking of the website, aesthetically, the logo is ugly and off-putting.)

But this brings me to:

Pros

All the schedule changes and room changes could have made the conference a real downer–except that the people who were attending just weren’t the kind of people you could get down. The readers were really excited about reading. The authors were excited to meet readers (and, hell, each other).  The people there were basically really good people, and I didn’t meet a single person who wasn’t determined to have a good time. That’s not always the case, and the attitude and positivity really made the conference.

These were people who loved to read (and write in some cases) and really, you couldn’t have paid them to be negative about books. The excitement about the romance genre was palpable, and I just loved being in that environment. Even given the cons above, my overall experience was very, very positive–and it was entirely the incredibly happy, positive readers who attended who made the conference not only work, but work really, really well.

As an example: The booksigning had a weird setup where you had to buy the books before you could see who the authors signing were.  The authors didn’t have the books they were signing at their tables. Anyone who’s done a number of signings knows this is not conducive to a great experience. But despite all that, readers were adamant about finding authors and books they didn’t know–I sold more books than I expected, to people I barely knew, and it was all because the people attending were excited about romance. What could have been a complete bust was actually one of the most fun signings I’ve ever attended as an author, one that had a lot of energy and almost none of that weird, “I’m afraid to make eye contact” thing that sometimes goes on.

Some Random Thoughts

The events I participated in that seemed the most successful were a “Shock the Queen!” event that combined “Mother, May I?” with etiquette questions, and a historical scavenger hunt that required people to seek items from authors of historical romance. Those two events were highly interactive, packed, and focused on the reader’s experience. I enjoyed participating in them, and the readers there seemed to be having a good time. There were lots of other such events–I don’t mention them because I didn’t go–but I heard lots and lots of positive feedback from many about the other events.

They were, however, run by authors–as were almost all of the events at RomCon. I am a reader as well as an author, but I tried to put myself in the readers’ shoes. I wish there had been more strictly reader-run events. There was a lounge for just authors; I don’t think there was a lounge for readers only, and I wish there had been, so they would have a place where they could escape and talk about books without being worried that an author (or an author’s friend) would overhear.

The events that were about celebrating readers and romance seemed to be the most successful. The ones where I heard mixed reviews were ones where the subject matter was more author-focused. This is supposed to be a reader conference, so I hope that in upcoming years they tweak that balance so that there are more solely reader-run events as well as the author celebration of reader events.

In other words, it was a really good start. I hope RomCon continues, and my final verdict is while it was not perfect, the attendees made the conference, and I think that with experience, it will only get better.

And if I met you at RomCon, you made my conference. Really.

My cover!

So my cover for my September release is finally up on Amazon!

So? What do you think? Red is good. I like red.

I am leaving the house as I type this, and my internet access will be crap, so my apologies if I don’t end up responding quickly.

Why discussions on historical accuracy go off the rails

They do have that tendency, with people getting hurt on both sides, and accusations being flung about with abandon.

There are some fundamental vocabulary problems at work here. That is because people do not use the same words to mean the same things.

Thus:

When people talk about a “historically accurate book,” they can mean any of the following:

  1. an attempt to recreate a period piece, in which the author mimics the formal sentence structure and word choice of Regency-era works.
  2. a book, set in historical times, where the author gets all of the major (e.g., plot-dependent) details right, and the vast majority of the minor ones.
  3. a book, set in historical times, wherein the author demonstrates that she has done her homework by including as much detail as possible.
  4. a book, set in historical times, wherein the characters adhere firmly to the strictures of their time, without any deviation, no matter their (otherwise historically accurate) motivations.

I have heard books decried as “not historically accurate” or “wallpaper historicals” for failure to meet any of the above 4 qualifications.

I attempt to write books that are historically accurate as per definition 2. My personal taste does not run to books written to definitions 1, 3, and 4, although there is clearly a market for those books as well.

Right now, apropos Sarah F.’s post on Dear Author, there is a massive discussion ranging on twitter about historical accuracy. I think 95% of the disagreement is that those who are claiming historical accuracy is less important are talking about books of the 1 and 3 variety, and those who are in favor are talking about books of the 2 variety.

The Records Office

Did I say yesterday that going to the Records office wasn’t sexy? I lied. I lied very much. It gave me a thrill down to my nerdy little toes. And not just one thrill. You cannot imagine how many thrills my nerdy little toes had today.

Some examples:

  • I got to hold–hold and handle–the rolls containing the oaths of office of all city officials. I wanted to see what form the oaths took. These were 200 year old pieces of parchment. Yes, actual parchment, not paper. It was amazing.
  • There was a massive book containing nothing except parking tickets circa the 1840s, which, while printed on thick paper, gave me a wave of nostalgia for present times: Dear John Sheppy, you left your wagon in the street for two hours, and caused an obstruction; appear at the Council House and pay a fine of up to 40 shillings.
  • There was the book of informations laid in the Petty Sessions. Petty Sessions deal with small crimes. You know the type; hitting your wife, assaulting a constable, stealing pigeons, running away from apprenticeships and the like. Out of around 800 informations laid in the book I looked at, 4 were dismissed; the others were convicted. The punishments were usually either the paying of a fine and/or imprisonment; the normal term was about 7 days, but they went up to 6 weeks hard labor (that one was for exposing ones person), and were as low as a fine of 5 shillings for being drunk in public. Of the four instances where charges were dismissed, two of the defendants had obvious indications of wealth: One had hired a lawyer (there was a cross examination listed in the book), and the other made note in talking of his defense that he had “his gig waiting” during the supposed assault on the constable. Of the other one, one was accused of animal cruelty, and the other of breaking a window. For that last one, the court clerk, clearly knowing what to expect, had already written “convicted” on the line, and had to cross it out.See? That first line–C-squiggle-squiggle-loop–is the law hand abbreviation for “convicted.” I saw a lot of those. If you squint, you can read the line just above it, which shows his defense (or, as they spelled it, defence): “It was accidentally done.”
  • While we’re at it, I’ve always known that the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives the first use found in print, for various phrases is off, particularly for slang. That’s because most words are used in speech long before they are used in printed publications. This is particularly true for words that would have been considered obscene at the time: it would have been illegal to print them.But my margin so far has been around 10 years, maybe 15, depending on the word in question. I’m going to have to rethink that. The phrase in question is “bloody hell,” and the OED attests it first from 1886. But here we are in 1838, and the constable claims he’s been told to go to bloody hell. Now, I note that this is not quite the same thing as using “Bloody hell!” as an exclamation. Nonetheless–all the bloody hell naysayers should take note.

    Incidentally, I liked this court reporter best. His handwriting was legible and not spidery, he wrote fast (meaning that we got much more story when he wrote, instead of a few lines), and he didn’t stint from using language like “bloody hell,” unlike the lame reporter in the beginning who started to write “exposing his naked parts” and then crossed off “naked parts” and substituted “person.” Once I figured out that “afs–” was his abbreviation for assault, we were all good. I imagine from his handwriting that this dude was cute. (I know. He was probably 75 and bald. Awww.)

    I’ve blurred out most of the document because the rest of the tale is pretty darned good–it’s obvious that the defendant knows how to tell a story, and who knows? I might end up using this in some altered form!

  • There was much, much more. But this was seriously awesome.