KayeDacus.com

Several weeks ago, I asked my favorite Romantic Comedy author if she would write a column on writing Romantic Comedy. She was wonderful enough to respond, even though she was in the process of getting ready for a trip to Bermuda. Here’s what Linda Windsor has to say about writing RomCom:

I really can’t say how to write humor. I have done a workshop about the structure of it, but as to the spark itself, I think you have to have sense of humor to start with. You have to have an eye to see the humor in almost anything. You have to take life’s most embarrassing moments and incorporate them into a scene that will work for the heroine/hero.

I wish I could say more, but there isn’t a formula for it. You take the mundane and “what if” it to funny. Or you take funny real life and incorporate it into a scene. So much of the funny things in my books are real. They happened to me or someone I know. Yep, I grew up with clowns. Not really. Just ordinary people who can laugh at themselves.

I had a friend who witnessed a fire in which someone murdered had been disposed. Her son went in and dragged out the body. It was freezing, so the cops set up office in friend’s hotel suite, at her compassionate invitation, to question the hysterical widow (Black Widow). A book was written about it, one of those dark true crime stories. But to hear my friend tell all the asides, it was hysterical. How she was hugging the murderer and nurturing her, not knowing she’d just shot a man in cold blood and set him on fire. How friend’s poor hubby, oblivious to all, tried to sleep in the other room while strangers kept coming in and sitting on side of his bed to use the phone. Someday, I might be able to use that. It’s all about perspective.

And of course, there is my infamous horseback ride in Jamaica, which is in IT HAD TO BE YOU: riding bareback in the water on the horse that ate Jamaica and dodging floating islands of fresh horsey pooh. “This wasn’t in the brochure!” was my direct quote. In my Piper Cove Chronicles, (WEDDING BELL BLUES) the crab debacle happened to me. Except I was on the kitchen counter, a mallot in each hand, while the critters crawled all over the floor. I could have used a hero. Instead, years later, I used that incident, my hysteria, in a book. It was NOT funny at the time.

The “What the Lord’s forgotten, you can pad with cotton” episode in FOR PETE’S SAKE, happened when that same girlfriend (who nurtured the murderer) and I went out years ago and she borrowed my dress. We stuffed the pre-formed bodice with paper towels and, as my friend danced the night away, she left a trail of paper towels and one of her bosoms was indented.

The wad pantyhose in the pant leg of my not so suave heroine in PAPER MOON was me. I felt this lump in my leg as I knelt to get goodies from a vending machine at work. Knowing something was amiss that I didn’t want to share with the men in the lunchroom, I hastened to my office, locked the door and investigated. Somehow pantyhose had managed to get in the leg of my slacks and, my not being the most alert in the morning, had not noticed. Except in my book, I carried it a little further.

Many know I lost my late husband four years ago. I hadn’t been to the huge cemetery but twice in my life and the day of his funeral, I wasn’t making a map. So there I was wandering through the tombstones, teary and feeling like the worst widow in the world. I mean, how can you lose your husband? Then I thought of him elbowing Jesus and telling Him, “Look, you only had to watch her. I’ve been living with that for 23 years!” And I laughed. A little later I found the gravesite and as I stared at my feet, I realized not only was I a ditz for losing poor Jim, but I was wearing a navy and a black shoe…of different heel heights! I could imagine the head-shaking going on in heaven. Sad, heart-breaking, yet funny. And my dear hubby had the greatest laugh of all, of that I’m certain. He delighted in my ditziness. Couldn’t wait to see what I’d do next.

It’s all in perspective. At least that’s the “magic” that works for me.

If any of you have ever gotten an e-mail from me, you know that my tagline under my “signature” is Inspirational Fiction with a Sense of Humor. But up until I started graduate school in 2004, I wouldn’t have categorized what I wrote as humorous. Why? Because I took myself and my writing too seriously. I’m the kind of person who is very easily embarrassed by even the littlest mishap, and it’s only been in the past few years that I’ve learned not to take myself so seriously. Because of that, I didn’t want to put my characters into any kind of situation that I would personally find uncomfortable. I struggled for nearly six months, once I realized I needed to infuse humor into my writing, to allow things to happen to my characters, or for them to have internal reactions to conflicts, that were funny—or at least smile inducing. During that time, I read all of Linda Windsor’s contemporary romances (my favorite is Along Came Jones), and then took several workshops she taught and listened to her talk about how she takes situations she’s experienced and incorporates them into her stories—and they’re always the funniest scenes in her books.

As Linda points out above, you can’t force humor. I’ve never made a secret of the fact that I cannot stand Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, and, most especially, Will Farrell. Aside from the fact that most of their humor is, simply, juvenile and degrading, I don’t like them for the most part because they try to force the humor. They do stupid things in their movies or comedy acts just for the sake of getting the cheap laugh—and many of the jokes are at someone else’s expense. But I know there are a lot of people who think they’re some of the funniest people to walk the face of the earth. (I know, I’m sounding like a curmudgeon.)

In writing, the humor needs to evolve naturally out of your own personality. What do you find funny? When is the last time you laughed so hard you cried (or nearly peed your pants)? Have you ever laughed hard and long enough that your stomach and face muscles ached for a while afterward? What made you laugh like that? What kind of comedy movies/shows do you enjoy? What’s the last novel you read that made you laugh? Have you ever analyzed why these make you laugh?

For Discussion:
Who is you favorite comedian? What’s your favorite romantic comedy movie? Who’s your favorite RomCom author? Book? Can a romance be humorous without being a romantic comedy?

A question came up at my local writing group’s monthly meeting Saturday: what’s the difference between Historical Romance and a Historical? (Oh, and BTW, I do use “a” with the word “historical” based on CMS 5.73 which says to use “a” if the “h” sound is pronounced. If I pronounced it ‘istorical, I’d use “an.” Just to head that argument off at the pass!)

Though it would seem like there would be an easy answer to this (and there is, to some extent), in the historical category, there’s a little more of a gray area where the lines get blurred.

The easy answer is this: a historical romance is a romance novel that’s set prior to the Vietnam war (or WWII, depending on the publishing house). Remember, the definition of a romance novel is that the storyline focuses on the developing relationship between the hero and heroine—if the romance is taken out, there is no more story. Historical novels are stories that take place in a historical setting which are more about the effect of that setting on the characters—whether it’s a war, the frontier, or the Protestant Revolution. There might be a romance that occurs in the story, but it’s a subplot. For example: Georgette Heyer wrote historical romances (Regencies); Jeff and Michael Shaara wrote/write historical fiction. Gone with the Wind is historical women’s fiction (it’s about Scarlett’s internal journey and how the events of history effected that journey); John Jakes’s North & South trilogy is historical fiction (it’s about the friendship between Orry and George and how they interacted with and were involved in the historical events).

The answer gets harder when we take into account that many historical stories include a grand romance as part of the storyline. It might not be the main focus of the plot, but it is integral to the story—the main plot just wouldn’t be of any interest without it.

Historicals also tend to be trilogies or even longer series, and, even if a romance is integral to the plot of the story, such as in J.M. Hochstetler’s American Patriot series, the romance may not be resolved for seven or eight volumes (or more—please not more, Joan!). The entire series is a romance, because the overarching thread is the love story between Elizabeth and Carleton, who are torn apart by the eruption of the Revolutionary War. Each individual book can be considered historical fiction, as it doesn’t follow the seven basic beats of the romance novel—and though each has a satisfying ending (that leaves us wanting more!), it isn’t a happily ever after ending. Once the series as a whole is complete, I’m certain that we could apply the seven beats to the entire story and we’ll see the romance “novel.”

See how the definitions get muddied?

Oh, and just to add one more facet to the definition: the works of Jane Austen, the Brontes, Elizabeth Gaskell, etc., are not considered “historical” romance—because they were contemporary romances when they were written—set during the time period in which they were actually written. A true “historical” is written by someone not living in the time period in which the story is set.

For Discussion:
Who here reads historical romances? Who are your favorite authors? Who is writing historicals/historical romances? Can you define from this whether your story is a historical or a historical romance?

Today at lunch, I have to brave the spring rains and drive a couple of blocks over to the post office. Going to the P.O. isn’t something that I do very often. I buy my regular stamps at Walgreens. I do all of my banking electronically. My agent takes everything through e-mail. So why am I risking losing the good parking space I got this morning and going out in the bad weather to go to the post office?

To mail back to Barbour the contracts I signed last night for Menu for Romance and A Case for Love, the two follow-up books to Stand-In Groom! Yes—I now have a three-book deal with Barbour. The series’ working title is either “Bonneterre Brides” or “Brides of Bonneterre.” Menu for Romance is due December 1, 2008, and A Case for Love is due July 1, 2009. As soon as I find out the tentative release dates, I’ll be sure to post that info here.

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock (and therefore have no idea who she is), you’re bound to be as excited as I am that Camy Tang wrote today’s column. One of the aspects of writing the romance novel I really wanted to highlight in this series is the ever expanding diversity of characters we’re finding. Today, Camy shares with us her experience about breaking into the market with stories focused on Asian-American characters.

~~~~~~~~~~

When I first started to seriously write fiction, I originally wrote ethnic-neutral characters. I was also relatively new to writing and didn’t understand good characterization or I would have realized a writer can’t get away with a character with no background. LOL

But after a while, I got the idea that maybe I should write Asian American characters. After all, write what you know, right? The problem was that at the time, there were very few Asian novels and not a huge demand for ethnic romances.

But God is in control. At a writer’s conference, while being prayed for, I received a word from God to “write my heritage.” I hadn’t told anyone I was thinking of writing Asian characters, of doing anything so risky, so this was a profound affirmation of God’s will for me.

I plunged in and started revising my story with a Japanese American character. But at the same time, I did some extensive research of the market.

I would strongly suggest this for any writer, whether you write ethnic fiction or not. Whatever you decide your brand is, do the research on other novels similar to yours in the market. It will help you craft a stronger proposal that will be more likely to catch an editor’s eye.

For example, at the time I wrote my first Asian American novel, I looked at what other novels had been published with Asian characters in both the Christian and mainstream market. In the Christian market, there were very few, and they all fell into either historical fiction or contemporary fiction genres. There were more novels in the mainstream market, but again they almost all fell into one of four genres: historical fiction, contemporary or women’s fiction, suspense, and erotica. There were exactly three Asian chick lit novels in print.

Also, most Asian American novels were about first or second generation Asian Americans. The cultural struggles of a first or second generation is subtly different from those of Asians who are their third, fourth, or fifth generation in the States.

There were almost no romances, nothing light or humorous.

This was good news for me, because I tend to like light, fun, humorous romances. I wrote my first Asian chick lit (which, consequently, was very very bad).

Since there were no Asian American romantic suspense novels in the Christian market, I also wrote a romantic suspense.

I wouldn’t have so specifically targeted light romance and romantic suspense if I hadn’t done my research and known what WASN’T being published in the Christian (and mainstream) markets. If I’d done a contemporary fiction or historical fiction novel, my story wouldn’t have stood out from any of the other Christian contemporary fiction or historical fiction novels with Asian characters that were already in print.

Because my proposal was so unique, it caught the eye of Sue Brower, who at the time was the Marketing Director at Zondervan. My Asian American chick lit hook intrigued her, and she encouraged Karen Ball (at the time, the Senior Editor) to take another look at my proposal. So, it was my proposal hook in addition to my writing that got me that second look.

I had also noticed that many romance and women’s fiction readers don’t like first person tense, and so I deliberately wrote my novels in third person in order to appeal to more readers. This decision paid off because I believe more people are willing to read my novels since they aren’t in first person. My publishing house recognizes that and respects my willingness to adjust to reach a wider reader demographic.

Since my novels have come out, I’ve had mostly good reviews, a few bad ones. They don’t surprise me, because let’s face it—none of us is going to write a book that appeals to EVERYBODY.

But what I love about reader letters is that so many people who are not Asian completely related to the family dynamics of the Sakai cousins. I’ve had people who say, “My German/Norwegian/Italian/you-name-it grandmother is exactly like Grandma Sakai!” It just goes to show that no matter the ethnicity, all families are alike. That was the appeal of stories like The Joy Luck Club, Bend It Like Beckham, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

So I guess you could say that my writing journey was instigated by God’s word to me, and carried through with the market research I did. I think that writers these days need a combination of both trust in God and business savvy.

My next novel, Single Sashimi, comes out in August and I’m very excited about it because it’s my favorite one in the series. After that … who knows? I’m open to God’s leading, but I’m pretty sure it’ll still be in my brand of Asian American romance.

Camy Tang is the loud Asian chick who writes loud Asian chick lit. She used to be a biologist, but now she is a staff worker for her church youth group and leads a worship team for Sunday service. She also runs the Story Sensei fiction critique service. On her blog, she gives away Christian novels every Monday and Thursday, and she ponders frivolous things like dumb dogs (namely, hers), coffee-geek husbands (no resemblance to her own…), the writing journey, Asiana, and anything else that comes to mind. Visit her website at http://www.camytang.com/ and sign up for her newsletter YahooGroup for monthly giveways!

It is difficult to explain the appeal of romance novels to people who don’t read them. Outsiders tend to be unable to interpret the conventional language of the genre or to recognize in that language the symbols, images, and allusions that are the fundamental stuff of romance. Moreover, romance writers are consistently attacked for their use of this language by critics who fail to fathom its complexities. In a sense, romance writers are writing in a code clearly understood by readers but opaque to others.
Linda Barlow and Jayne Ann Krentz, “Beneath the Surface: The Hidden Codes of Romance,” Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women

When a reader picks up a romance novel, she comes to it with certain subconscious expectations in mind as to the development of the characters and their relationship, the plot, and the ultimate ending. When an author fails to follow through on meeting these expectations, the romance reader feels let down, betrayed even. It is this “code” which creates such antipathy for romance novels in the general public while keeping readers returning again and again to buy more books. Barlow and Krentz take this one step further to point out that it is not just the structure of the stories that carry expectations, but the language—the “diction”—of the genre that draws the reader in. They believe romance readers are trained through their reading to recognize turns of phrase or word constructs and respond with a deep emotional connection to the story and the characters. In fact, they posit, the reader looks for these constructs, wanting to relive these emotions with each book they read (21). Readers also expect character development and the relationship between hero and heroine to be the main focus of the story, and through the use of “descriptive code,” they expect a detailed description of the characters’ physical characteristics (24).

Knowing that, when I read a romance novel, I expect to see a certain flow of words, certain physical and emotional reactions described in symbolic language. Therefore, it is not just in story structure that I follow the conventional structure of the genre (the seven beats) when I write. I also incorporate the subconsciously sought-after turns of phrase to connect the reader with my story as well as connect my story with the genre; for example, in Stand-In Groom when Anne first meets George, she gazes “into eyes the color of light-roast cinnamon hazelnut coffee, and her heart fluttered.” George appreciates Anne’s “shapely figure” and “Wedgwood-blue eyes.” Throughout the novel, eyes sparkle, pulses race, hearts thunder, toes curl, and cheeks burn. (Because I am writing my novel for the Christian audience, however, that is as far as the physical sensuality goes.)

Because the language of romance is more lushly symbolic and metaphorical than ordinary discourse, the reader is stimulated not only to feel but also to analyze, interpret, and understand.
Barlow/Krentz

There are some romance authors who would say that the language of romance novels is more akin to that of poetry than it is to other fiction genres.

But much has changed since Barlow and Krentz wrote this essay, published in 1992. Yes, romance readers still look for those descriptions, the metaphors and similes, the poetic devices, but romance writers have evolved, have learned to be more subtle with them, more delicate . . . more natural, less purple.

Aha. There’s that term. Purple prose. What exactly does that mean? Well, let’s see if I can’t show you:

Caught up in the tender savagery of love . . . she saw him, felt him, knew him in a manner that, for an instant, transcended the physical. It was as if their souls yearned toward each other, and in a flash of glory, merged and became one. (Linda Barlow, Fires of Destiny)

Savagery . . . transcended . . . souls yearned . . . yowsa. Getting pretty purple there. In recent years, the genre has started trending away from these kinds of overblown descriptions, words and language that the characters themselves wouldn’t really use in real life:

The glow of the dying firelight highlighted his handsome features. His was the kind of face stonecutters fashioned elegies from. Clean lines, chiseled to the right proportion. Handsome. A girlish sigh built in her chest . . . (Linda Windsor, Maire)

See the difference in the two passages? Linda Windsor’s prose still taps into that “coded” language, but it’s not so overly dramatic that it becomes purple.

For Discussion:
Just for fun, take a three to four sentence paragraph from your WIP and rewrite it as purple as you can and post it here. Use lots of flowery adjectives and overblown emotions. Use clichés.

Was it hard or easy to do? Do you think you can identify purple prose in your own work? In others’?

I don’t usually publish series posts on Sundays, but we still have a lot to cover in this discussion!

Last week, we looked at Billy Mernit’s seven beats of the romance storyline, first with his definitions, then with examples of the first five. Let’s round out the discussion with the two final beats, the ones that seemed to generate the most confusion/comments last week.

6. The Dark Moment/Crisis

Wherein the consequences of the swivel decision yield disaster; generally, the humiliating scene where private motivations are revealed, and either the relationship and/or the protagonist’s goal is seemingly lost forever. (115)

When we talk about the general structure of the romance novel, this is the “boy loses girl, seemingly forever” part. This is when the conflict between them rises to such a crescendo that it seems insurmountable.

Continuing the illustration with Jude Deveraux’s historical romance The Velvet Promise, the dark moment comes when—after Gavin and Judith have reunited, forgiven each other for everything that’s come before, and admitted they love each other—Judith is kidnapped by Gavin’s former lover, Alice (remember the one who created the first and second turning points [steps 3 & 5]). Now crazed because Gavin has given her up, Alice threatens to pour boiling oil on Judith’s face to steal her beauty and, she believes, regain Gavin’s love (kind of a “who’s the fairest of them all” scenario). Gavin arrives—his only thought of saving Judith, yet still not wanting to believe that Alice is the deceitful, manipulative woman of loose morals everyone has been trying to tell him she is. When Alice greets him, he finally sees her for what she is—an obsessed, crazed woman. For Gavin, his dark moment comes when he realizes how foolish he’s been in always defending Alice, in always believing she was as close to an angel as a human could get, and that because of this, he stands a very real chance of losing the woman he truly loves, Judith. For Judith, the dark moment comes when Alice drags her up onto the rooftop to try to get away from Gavin (Judith is terrified of heights). She believes she is about to die.

7. Joyful Defeat/Resolution

A reconciliation that reaffirms the primal importance of the relationship; usually a happy ending that implies marriage or a serious commitment, often at the cost of some personal sacrifice to the protagonist. (116)

This seems to be the point that generated the most questions/confusion. What did Mernit mean by “personal sacrifice”? Does that mean that to be together, the hero and/or heroine has to give something up in order for the romance to have a HEA ending? No, not necessarily.

Here is the step from The Velvet Promise (Jude Deveraux, published by Pocket Books, copyright 1981):

Alice fell backward, away from the edge, thanks to the sacrifice of her maid. But the pot of oil in her hand fell with her, spilling across her forehead and cheek. She began to scream horribly.

Gavin made one leap across the roof to where Judith still clung. Her extreme fear of heights and her resulting iron grip on the chimney had saved her life. . . .

“Look what you’ve done to me!” Alice screamed through her pain. . . .

“No,” Gavin answered, looking at Alice’s mutilated face with great pity. “It was not I nor Judith who has harmed you, but only yourself.” . . .

Gavin took Judith down the stairs to the room below. . . . “It’s over now, my love,” Gavin whispered. “You are safe now. She will harm you no more.” . . .

“What will happen to her now?” Judith asked quietly.

“I don’t know. I could give her to the courts, but I think perhaps she’s been punished enough. No longer will her beauty ensnare men.”

Judith looked up at him in surprise and studied his face.

“You look at me as if you’re seeing me for the first time,” he said.

“Maybe I am. You’re free of her.”

“I have told you before that I no longer loved her.”

“Yes, but there was always a part of you that was hers, a part I couldn’t touch. But now she no longer possesses you. You are mine—totally and completely mine.”

“And that pleases you?”

“Yes,” she whispered. “It pleases me greatly.”

The “personal sacrifice” Gavin has made here is that he saw his first love for what she really was. The rose-colored glasses were torn from his eyes and he was forced to see reality (and, as mentioned above in his dark moment, realize that his willful blindness to Alice’s faults put Judith’s life—and that of the child she lost—at risk). This book closes with a “commitment” HEA ending—because Judith and Gavin are already married. In arranged/forced-marriage stories, usually historicals, you’ll usually find this kind of an ending—a reconciliation of the couple and something that indicates their marriage will be happy. And both of these steps—from Judith’s kidnapping to the ending, quoted above—take place in the last nine pages of the book.

The “personal sacrifice” that Mernit mentions can be equated to whatever internal journey the characters have throughout the book. It’s the change they need to make in their lives—whether emotional, spiritual, or even physical (moving, changing jobs, etc.)—that will allow them to make that commitment to the other person. It can also be one of the characters facing his or her greatest fear (such as flying, heights, water, etc.), because the thought of losing the other is actually worse than the long-held fear.

In Catherine Marshall’s Christy (not technically a romance, but a women’s fiction with a strong romantic thread), it is Dr. McNeil’s prayer at Christy’s sickbed, when he gives up the tight control he’s always tried to hold over his life to God. In The Wedding Planner, it is Steve realizing he’s making a mistake if he marries Fran and going on a mad rush to try to find Mary, because he finally realizes he chose to marry Fran for the wrong reasons. In You’ve Got Mail, it’s when Kathleen goes to the park to meet her online beau only to discover it’s Joe Fox—and she realizes that, even though she’s railed against him and tried to keep from falling for him, she really loves him.

For Discussion:
Is your dark moment dark enough? What about some that are too dark so that they become melodramatic? How long are these two steps in your WIP or last completed manuscript? If you haven’t gotten that far, pick out a favorite book and see how many pages it takes to complete these two steps.

Welcome to Cranford, circa 1840…a rural English town where etiquette rules, undergirded by a healthy amount of gossip. Modernity is making a move in town as construction of a railway comes harrowingly close. Cranford’s eclectic residents, among them Matty Jenkyns (Dame Judi Dench) her sister Deborah (Dame Eileen Atkins), and Miss Pole (Imelda Staunton), stay immersed in the sweet pleasures and sometimes heartbreaking realities of simple village life. But when a handsome, young doctor arrives with cutting-edge new techniques, it rapidly becomes clear that as the world changes, so Cranford will change with it. Boasting an all-star cast, and based on the works of Elizabeth Gaskell, Cranford breathes life into one town during one extraordinary year.
(Courtesy of the PBS/Masterpiece website)

I’m sure all of my wonderful readers have heard of Charlotte Bronte and Charles Dickens. But most of you have probably not heard of another wonderful author who was a contemporary of Charles and Charlotte: Elizabeth Gaskell. For some reason, she never gained the popularity outside of England as authors such as Dickens, the Brontes, and Jane Austen. However, her works remained popular in Britain . . . so much so that adaptations were made of two of her novels, the unfinished Wives and Daughters and, perhaps the most popular, North and South (not about the American War Between the States, but about the differences between the “industrial” northern part and “genteel” southern part of England during the industrial revolution of the 1840s), bringing her to the notice of lovers of BBC costume dramas and making Richard Armitage a very popular piece of British eyecandy.

Judi Dench as Miss Mattie Jenkyns

This Masterpiece/BBC version of Cranford is actually based on three of Mrs. Gaskell’s novels: Cranford, My Lady Ludlow, and Mr. Harrison’s Confessions. Here’s the back cover blurb on the copy of Cranford I have at home:

Cranford is a humorous account of a nineteenth-century English village dominated by a group of genteel but modestly circumstanced women. By eschewing the conventional marriage plot with its nubile heroines and focusing instead on a group of middle-aged and elderly spinsters, Elizabeth Gaskell did something highly unusual within the novel genre. Through her masterful management of the novel’s tone, she underscores the value and dignity of single women’s lives, even as she causes us to laugh at her characters’ foibles. Charles Dickens was the first of many readers to extol its wit and charm, and it has consistently been Gaskell’s most popular work.

Heidi Thomas, whose best-known work as a screenwriter is probably the indie film I Capture the Castle says of the Cranford adaptation, “There is no sex. You are dealing with a lot of very excitable virgins, and that to me is so much more delicious than sexing it up.” (CNN.com) And that is probably one of the things I liked best about this film. It’s funny, poignant, and romantic without having to “go there,” as even the venerated Andrew Davies did in the latest adaptation of Sense & Sensibility.

The casting in Cranford is absolutely superb. I actually had to stop the DVD in the first episode and look it up on IMDb, because I kept recognizing faces but couldn’t quite place them, then had “Oh, of course” [smack self on forehead] moments as soon as I saw each actor’s list of film credits. (Which we’ll get into in just a moment.)

Everything about this adaptation is of the highest quality. The costuming, the sets, the screenplay, the art direction, the acting. As I told Ruth yesterday, I feel it’s the best new film the Masterpiece Classic Series has put on this spring—yes, better than the new Jane Austen adaptations.

Watch it when it comes on (the next three Sundays), and record it or go ahead and preorder the DVD, because this is one you’re going to want to watch over and over and over and over . . .

The Austen Connection
Just in case anyone doubted my Austen obsession, we’ll now get into the Austen Connections . . . or how the actors in this film are connected with film adaptations of Austen’s novels:

Simon Woods (Dr. Harrison)—played Bingley in Pride & Prejudice 2005.

Judi Dench (Mattie Jenkyns)—played Lady Catherine in P&P 2005.

Lisa Dillon (Mary Smith)—was in Hawking with Peter Firth (Henry Tilney, Northanger Abbey 1986); was in Bright Young Things with James McAvoy (Becoming Jane); was in Cambridge Spies with Tom Hollander (Mr. Collins, P&P 2005), Samuel West (Mr. Elliot, Persuasion 1995), and Rupert Penrey-Jones (Frederick Wentworth, Persuasion 2008).

Imelda Staunton (Miss Pole)—played Mrs. Palmer in Sense & Sensibility 1995.

Julia McKenzie (Mrs. Forrester)—was in Bright Young Things with James McAvoy (Becoming Jane); was in Adam Bede with Susannah Harker (Jane Bennet, P&P 1995) and Jean Marsh (Mrs. Ferrars, S&S 2008).

Alex Etel (Harry Gregson)—was in The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep with David Morrissey (Col. Brandon, S&S 2008).

Kimberly Nixon (Sophy Hutton)—is in the upcoming (2009) film Easy Virtue with Colin Firth (the third best Mr. Darcy, P&P 1995).

Deborah Findlay (Miss Tomkinson)—was in Wives & Daughters with Tom Hollander (Mr. Collins, P&P 2005) and Rosamund Pike (Jane Bennet, P&P 2005).

Barbara Flynn (Mrs. Jamieson)—was in Miss Potter with Ewan McGregor (Frank Churchill, Emma [GP version] 1996) and Phyllida Law (Mrs. Austen, Miss Austen Regrets, and Mrs. Bates, Emma [GP version] 1996); was in Hornblower: Duty with Greg Wise (Willoughby, S&S 1995) and Julia Sawalha (Lydia, P&P 1995) in which she played Julia’s mother.

Philip Glenister (Mr. Carter)—was in Hornblower: Mutiny and Hornblower: Retribution with David Rintoul (the best Mr. Darcy, P&P 1981).

Julia Sawalha (Jessie Brown)—played Lydia Bennet in P&P 1995. (Was also in a couple of Hornblower movies along with Barbara Flynn, who played her mother, and Greg Wise—S&S 1995—though not the same episodes as Philip Glenister/David Rintoul—hmmm . . . maybe I should do all of these with connections to Hornblower one of these days . . .)

Jim Carter (Captain Brown)—was in Bright Young Things with James McAvoy (Becoming Jane); was in Hornblower: Duty with Greg Wise (Willoughby, S&S 1995) and Julia Sawalha (Lydia, P&P 1995—see, I told you I could do this with the Hornblower films too). He’s also married to Imelda Staunton (yes, who’s in this film and who was also in S&S 1995).

Claudie Blakley (Martha)—played Charlotte Lucas in P&P 2005.

Francesca Annis (Lady Ludlow)—was in Wives & Daughters with Tom Hollander (Mr. Collins, P&P 2005) and Rosamund Pike (Jane Bennet, P&P 2005).

Greg Wise (Sir Charles)—played Willoughby in S&S 1995.

Alistair Petrie (Major Gordon)—played Robert Martin in Emma (KB version) 1996. He’s married to Lucy Scott (Charlotte Lucas, P&P 1995).

Michael Gambon (Mr. Holbrook)—aside from his connections to all of the JA-adaptation actors in the Harry Potter movies (another version of “degrees of separation,” anyone?), was in Wives & Daughters with Tom Hollander (Mr. Collins, P&P 2005) and Rosamund Pike (Jane Bennet, P&P 2005).

Whew! And those were just the ones I could come up with that were one or two degrees of separation!

Links of Interest
The Writings of Elizabeth Gaskell on Google Books
Wikipedia Article on Elizabeth Gaskell
The Gaskell Web
Elizabeth Gaskell Page on VictorianWeb
The Gaskell Society
Cranford Chronicles (a blog dedicated to the film)

Reviews of the Film:
Variety
Why We All Want to LIve in Cranford (Daily Mail)
Where Gossip Is a National Treasure (Times Online)
Splendid but Sudsy (The Guardian)
“Very Excitable Virgins” Dominate Town (CNN.com)
Jane Austen Today’s Review
Cranford Brings Memories for Judi Dench (Los Angeles Times)

Be sure to come back and leave your thoughts about the first section of Cranford that airs this Sunday evening!

Back at the beginning of the year, I wrote a post about the lawsuit J.K. Rowling has brought against the writers of a Harry Potter Lexicon (Fun Friday–J.K. Rowling, Are You Kidding Me?). Well, the case is now in court. The British newspaper The Guardian has an update on it.

~~~~~~~

Have you ever ended a relationship because your tastes in literature differed, your partner hated your favorite author, or he didn’t read at all? Check out this essay from the New York Times.

~~~~~~~

Are you like me and love your Roget’s Thesaurus? Ever wonder who Roget was? Here’s a review of the biography of Mark Roget, The Man Who Made Lists.

~~~~~~~

What’s the difference between a creatively written memoir and fiction? The New Yorker magazine explored this question recently in “Just the Facts, Ma’am: Fake memoirs, factual fictions, and the history of history.”

~~~~~~~

Okay, so this one isn’t really about books or an author. With the upcoming release of a long-awaited and somewhat questionable fourth Indiana Jones movie May 22, National Public Radio correspondent Christopher Joyce recently explored the question, Indiana Jones: Saving History or Stealing It?

The piece is part of a series NPR is running called “In Character” in which they’ve taken critical and historical looks at some of our favorite fictional characters from TV, movies, and books:
Hannibal Lecter: A Psycho with an Unlikely Soft Spot
Jack Bauer: Quiet, Ruthless Defender of America
Fictional Characters That Inspire: TV’s Jack Bauer
Catwoman: Feminine Power, on the Prowl
Blanche DuBois: Chasing Magic, Fleeing the Dark
Was Captain Ahab Ahead of His Time?
Pretty, Plastic Barbie: Forever What We Make Her
Unapologetically Harriet, the Misfit Spy
Hester Prynne: Sinner, Victim, Object, Winner
Elmer Gantry, a Flawed Preacher for the Ages
Darth Vader: The Tragic Man Behind the Mask
Cookie Monster: A Sweet, Sensual Id, Unfiltered
Valentino’s Sheik: An ‘Other’ Made to Swoon Over
‘Salesman’ Willy Loman: A Towering Little Man
Was Jim of ‘Huckleberry Finn’ a Hero?
Shrewd, Selfish Scarlett: A Complicated Heroine
Pollyanna: Spirit of Optimism Born Out of War
Our Characters, Ourselves: ‘In Character’ From NPR

~~~~~~~

NPR has also been running a series entitled “You Must Read This,” in which modern authors speak about one particular novel they’ve read that has had a profound influence on their lives.

~~~~~~~

Gail Gaymer Martin’s Writing the Christian Romance has been made the subject of a very ribald article which tries to harpoon the Christian romance genre. Be sure to read the comments that have been left. You might recognize a few names of published Christian romance authors!

~~~~~~~

Have a wonderful weekend! 

Though this is coming under much more debate these days, with all of the editors and agents saying chick lit is dead, dead, dead (which they said about historicals several years ago, but I digress), the standard POV for romance is third-person limited, past-tense, featuring the viewpoints of the heroine and the hero. That is what the romance reader is looking for.

I have heard from several authors recently that their first-person/present-tense “romance” novels were rejected, because the editor felt they were too chick-litty; or the author was asked to rewrite the story in third-person/past-tense and include the hero’s POV. And, by way of full disclosure, I am extremely prejudiced against the first/present POV and have only read two authors whose first/present chick lit novels I’ve enjoyed: Georgiana Daniels and Laura Jensen Walker.

Yes, single viewpoint romances have been written, and yes, they can be done well. In fact, we could say that there is almost a subgenre of romance which is the “girl must choose between two boys” romance. Young adult romances use this setup a lot (such as the Sunfire romances I read as a teen), as does chick lit.

I just want you to be forewarned that selling a romance novel that isn’t third/past/dual POV might be a struggle. Not impossible. But a struggle. But, don’t just take my prejudiced word for it.

A writer should stick to one POV per scene. “Headhopping” is a definite no-no.

For category romance, a book should either contain just the heroine’s POV, or, optimally, the heroine’s and hero’s POV.

Multiple POVs [more than hero/heroine] should be reserved for single-title works only.

In general, third-person POV is the preferred viewpoint.

(Rebecca Vinyard, The Romance Writer’s Handbook)

What does she mean, no headhopping? What about Nora Roberts and Jude Deveraux and Julie Garwood and Lori Wick? They headhop all over the place! Yes, and they’re all multi-published authors whose books sell on the strength of their brand-name, not the strength of their craft. Honing the skill of writing in deep, third-limited POV will strengthen your writing like nothing else.

The most common point of view in Christian romance is third person limited, alternating the hero’s or heroine’s POV by scene or chapters. . . . This method allows readers to enjoy getting to know both the hero and heroine intimately by seeing their relationship through both characters’ thoughts.
(Gail Gaymer Martin, Writing the Christian Romance)

Let’s take, for example, the movie You’ve Got Mail. What if it only had Meg Ryan’s scenes and the scenes in which she and Tom Hanks are together? Take out all of the scenes of him apart from her. You’d lose a big chunk of what’s important to the development of Kathleen and Joe’s relationship: the conflicts he brings to the table because of his family. If the story were told only from Kathleen’s POV, we would probably never understand why she ends up falling in love with him—nor would we get the chance to see the change and growth in him. Without getting inside the hero’s head, it’s a lot harder to convince the reader that the hero is worthy of our heroine’s love.

By using POV to allow the reader an intimate glimpse inside the character’s perspectives, the writer allows the reader to understand why the character is threatened by the conflict and why she [or he] feels so strongly about the subject.
(Gallagher/Estrada, eds., Writing Romances)

Including both the hero’s and heroine’s viewpoints not only gives us insight into both sides of the developing relationship, it’s also a way to create and maintain suspense and conflict. As we talked about in the Hooking the Reader series, being able to cut away from a character’s POV at a pivotal moment—a moment of decision or the cusp of taking a new action—hooks the reader and keeps them reading to find out what happens next.

In romance, it is the hero who carries the book. Within the dynamics of reading a romance, the female reader is the hero, and also is the heroine-as-object-of-the-hero’s-interest. . . . Through her own and the hero’s eyes, the reader watches and judges the heroine . . . the closer she moves toward spontaneously identifying with both hero and heroine, the more rich and rewarding the romance is likely to be for her.
(Laura Kinsale, “The Androgynous Reader,” Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women)

For Discussion:
What POV do you prefer to read romances in? Do you always want the hero’s POV? Would you ever consider writing a single POV romance from the hero’s viewpoint? Do you find yourself identifying more with the heroine when you see her through the hero’s eyes—wanting to be in her place as the object of his admiration? What POV have you chosen to use? Any other thoughts on POV in romance?

The strong, domineering hero of the romance novel has long been the subject of criticism. What critics don’t realize is that it is the hero’s task in the book to present a suitable challenge to the heroine. His strength is a measure of her power. For she must conquer him.
Robyn Donald, “The Hero in Romance Literature”

Most romance writers I’ve talked to, or whose critical writings or interviews I’ve read, say that their ideas for their novels begin with the characters. I’ve found this to be true for myself—and for me, it’s usually the hero who comes first. After all, the true romance novel is, as we learned last time, a story about the developing relationship between two characters. Meaning that it is the characters who are the central focus of the story, the characters who drive the plot, the characters whom, at the end of the book, the reader really cares about. Therefore, when setting out to write a romance novel, a considerable amount of care and attention needs to be paid to developing your characters.

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, “Begin with an individual and you will find that you have created a type; begin with a type and you will find that you have created—nothing.” Back in the glory days of the books that gave us the term bodice-rippers (the 1970s and ’80s, just in case you don’t remember reading them yourself!), most of us who were avid romance readers had our favorite authors, because we could count on them to give us the kinds of heroes and heroines we were looking for. Jude Deveraux, Julie Garwood, and Catherine Coulter were my three favorites. In fact, I didn’t read very many other authors at all, because I had all I wanted in their prolific writings. They gave their readers warrior-heroes who took what they wanted no matter the consequences, who resented the heroines for distracting them from their tasks, who felt love was showing weakness and would bring them dishonor; and heroines who were strong, sometimes well beyond what was realistic for the medieval or other historical time periods in which the stories were set, who put up with the men’s brutality and eventually came to not only love them, but soften/tame them as well—while never giving up their own identity.

I’ve recently re-read two old Julie Garwood novels, Honor’s Splendor and The Wedding, and I came to the realization that even though the heroes are technically different—one is an English Baron, the other a Scottish Laird—they’re basically the same. And the heroines are too. And I’m now remembering that even though I considered Julie Garwood my favorite of the three authors I mentioned, I never really did like her heroines. Like the heroes, they’re all very similar, and relatively silly. Jude Deveraux, while still giving the warrior-heroes at least didn’t make her heroines silly. But for the most part, all of them wrote characters that were stereotypical for their era: the warrior and the damsel in distress.

Sure, there are a lot of readers out there who still want those two archetypal romance characters. Or they want the Scoundrel and the Socialite, or the Rich Man and Poor Girl. And if we study all romance novels deeply enough, we’ll find that for the most part, all of our characters fall into some kind of “type” in one way or another. But we have to fight against the stereotypes to make our characters fresh and appealing.

If a romance novel features a heroine with red hair and green eyes, what kind of personality do you expect her to have? If there’s an African American man as a secondary character in a book and a crime is committed, who’s the perpetrator most likely going to be? Are all Italian men hot-headed, lusty, and linked with underground crime? Are all medieval men warlords, barons, or lairds? Do all historical heroines have to be feisty, spunky, educated beyond what is historically believable, hate their corsets, and want to run around all over the place unchaperoned?

In inspirational romance, we have our own set of stereotypes to deal with: the pioneer widow who must marry a stranger to survive; the nineteenth century teacher who’s gone west to teach and bring God’s word to the heathens; missionaries and preachers; secretaries; characters with jobs so vague as to be nonexistent; ranch owners who take in wayward boys; the good Christian girl who must “save” the backslidden or non-Christian hero; and so on.

Quite a lot has changed in the romance genre since the heyday of Deveraux, Garwood, and Coulter. We’ve seen the splintering of romance into subgenres: chick lit, paranormal, romantic suspense, inspirational, sweet, historical (which has its own genres, the two most popular being Regency and medieval), etc. We’ve also seen the decline in popularity of the warrior heroes and damsel-in-distress heroines. Oh, sure, they’re still out there, but modern readers are looking for something more. They’re looking for a twist on the type. They’re looking for unique individuals, so that each story they read seems different from the last.

One thing that has become possible in the last ten or fifteen years has been the beta-male hero. He’s Clark Kent without the Superman alter-ego. He’s Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. He’s the Hollywood mega-star’s personal assistant (George in Stand-In Groom). He’s most likely not buff nor capable of physically sweeping the heroine off her feet, doesn’t hold a “romantic” job (systems support analyst, anyone?), and definitely doesn’t go around intimidating people because of his physical prowess. Yes, typically, these beta-male heroes are found mostly in contemporaries. (We still like our historical heroes to be alpha-males.)

With the rise of the beta-male has come the rise of the alpha-female—the “bitch,” in other words. She’s the powerful woman who’s completely given up on men. She’s the attorney, the vice president of the company, the CEO, the governor, the senator. She has taken over as the character who must be conquered, whose stony dispassion must be chiseled away by our more in-touch-with-his-emotions beta-male.

But once again, in these scenarios, we tend toward types. Our job as authors is to make sure we’re not falling into the trap of beginning with a “type” of character. Is your character telling you she’s a teacher? Great. Make her a shop teacher at an inner-city high school instead of a kindergarten teacher at a private school where all the children are precocious little angels. He’s a medieval Highland laird? Super. Make him a pacifist. Do something to give some kind of twist to your character’s “type” to keep him or her from becoming a stereotype.

In inspirational romance, we’re so scared of giving our characters any kind of flaws, sins, or pasts that they come across as perfect, sanctimonious prigs. Let them have pasts that they’re still paying the consequences for. Let them say things that not everyone around them agrees with. Let them argue. Let them fall down and fail. Let them get angry at God. Let someone else take them down off of their holier-than-thou high-horse.

Because there’s no way to cover everything about romance heroes and heroines in one blog entry, we’ll continue talking about them tomorrow. But for now, let’s get some discussion going.

For Discussion:
In your WIP, what “type” is your hero? (Alpha? Beta? Highland laird? Nerd?) Your heroine? (Damsel in distress? CEO? Silly girl who gets into one catastrophe after another?) What have you done to keep them from becoming stereotypes? Do you have a favorite author who tends to use stereotypical characters in her/his novels? What are your favorite “types” to read in romances?