Regency Cliches?

[BlackViolet13]

A friend of mine/my CP has written a series of Regencies. I've been able to help her with characterization, plot, structure, and grammar, but I'm not sure about the Regency cliches because I don't read a lot of the genre. She has done extensive research on the era, so I'm not worried so much about that, but I know every genre sort of has its own list of cliches, and I want to be able to help her identify those and work on them if needed. So I guess if you can think of anything that makes you absolutely gag or throw a book against the wall when you read it, list it here ;)

Also, she is very light on the sex scenes like most Regencies, but she's used a LOT of purple prose in them. I directed her to The Purple Prose Eater and she was able to eliminate the DO NOTs, but now she isn't exactly sure how to approach the DOs. I tend to be really frank with my descriptions, so I'm afraid I'm falling short of her expectations here LOL I have Angela James' Passionate Ink book, but it's way too explicit for her needs. Does anyone have a site or book they can refer to?

Any suggestions or ideas on either of these would be very helpful. Thanks!

[BlackViolet13]

Thank you, Mollyluna! That was an absolutely LOVELY passage, and yes, I definitely want to read it now. I think what works so well is that the language doesn't pull you out of the scene at all; it's very, very fluid and the rhythm of the words matches the, uh, rhythm of the action being described. Beautiful.

I think the Purple Prose Eater should be engraved in gold somewhere in the Romance Hall of Fame. If I have to stop for a moment and try to figure out what the euphemism means, or cleanse my mind of anything that remotely resembles horses or riding, there's a good chance I won't be picking the book up again. There has to be a balance struck with a scene that is written with subtle words, but the meaning is absolutely explicit. I don't want a total shock factor when I read, but when the words elicit a visceral reaction in the reader (blushing, racing heart, the works!), it's incredible. Hopefully that makes sense :)

[Susan Gable]

Just make sure that what you're getting rid of aren't essentials to the genre. Regencies all tend to have a ball/dance scene. I don't consider that a cliche, I consider it sort of an essential part of the subgenre., something that a reader expects when they pick up a Regency.

Does that make any sense? (I have a terrible cold and have been on meds for a few days now. <G> It's hard to tell lately if I make sense or not. LOL!)

Susan G.

[Gillhoughly]

Now, how can anyone read this and NOT want to get the book?

Raises hand.

It was too tab-A, slot-B, anatomy-heavy for my taste. All I could see were thumbs, knees, ankles, and what read to my editor's eye as a detached penis floating around various erogenous zones.

When I write nookie I take it as a challenge to make the scene as smokin' hawt as possible without mentioning a single body part.

Apparently it works. I've gotten mail from women who promptly located, tackled, and ravished their significant others into a coma after having a bit of a read.

Keep in mind I'm very picky, and we all have different tastes for something like this. There's plenty of readers who want anatomy mentioned, I just can't write for them.

The most effective love scene I ever read wasn't even a love scene. A single line in a Dick Francis novel reduced me to a teary puddle.

The MC, a widower, walked by his room and just looked in at the bed where he and his wife had made love. And that was all. In one line, set down in plain, unpurpled prose, Francis got across the depth of love and magnitude of loss for the character. My flinty heart melted and morphed into sticky goo. I wept hard, then read on, thoroughly in love with the character and ready to follow him to hell and back.

That one line was what I call an emotional eyeball kick, the kind of writing that makes me want to shred my own efforts, move to Tierra del Fuego and raise wombats.

Which, in the current state of financial instability, is looking better every day.

[BlackViolet13]

Bummer about the cold, Susan! You make perfect sense :D Hope you feel better quick!

Things like the ballroom scene that are staples more than cliches are the exact type of thing I need learn to distinguish between. Thanks for that reference!

I've searched for this topic because I know on romance sites and such, readers tend to talk about things like that. I only came up with a really vague reference to some of the historical cliches in general.

[BlackViolet13]

When I write nookie I take it as a challenge to make the scene as smokin' hawt as possible without mentioning a single body part.

Apparently it works. I've gotten mail from women who promptly located, tackled, and ravished their significant others into a coma after having a bit of a read.


That does sound intriguing. So what do you do? Play up on the emotions or sensations? Care to share your secrets with the class?

The Dick Francis scene sounds like one that would make me cry. I hate crying, but every now and then a girl needs a good tear duct detox. What's the title?

Thanks in advance for both!

[Gillhoughly]

That's funny.

My nookie scenes have all been from the guy's point of view.

They're damned good lovers, btw.

Yes, I focus on their internal reactions and feelings while with their partners. One of my buds mentioned a bit on his technique without going into details. It was often a point of personal pride for him to get his partners over the top a few times before he had his turn.

Woof.

No wonder all his old girlfriends still like him! Drop his name and they all break into these big smiles. Not kidding, I've seen it.

----------------


The Dick Francis novel was "Proof" about a wine merchant whose sense of taste is needed to help solve the crime. I thought Francis did a fantastic job getting across the man's grief, as well as how others dealt with it. He pointed out, without judgment, that some people are rather embarrassed about death; they have to know how much sympathy to show. The book has so many little moments that just made me stop and appreciate how he went straight for the truth of any scene or character and made it look so EASY.

[BlackViolet13]

They're damned good lovers, btw.

Yes, I focus on their internal reactions and feelings while with their partners. One of my buds mentioned a bit on his technique without going into details. It was often a point of personal pride for him to get his partners over the top a few times before he had his turn.

Woof.

No wonder all his old girlfriends still like him! Drop his name and they all break into these big smiles. Not kidding, I've seen it.


:e2brows: NIIIIIICE! Thanks very much for your information, Gillhoughly, it's very helpful :D

Going back to your friend...a friend of mine is a published romance author and she says she has a Rule of Three, meaning that the hero brings his heroine to climax three times for every one that he has. Woof, indeed!

[BlackViolet13]

So what exactly is the regency period? Because I hear you guys talking about dancing and I just watched Pride and Prejudice tonight. You cannot get the emotion of the dances from the book, but the movie, whoa. Love the dancing scenes. If you're writing regency, put several of those in and don't forget how hot and sweaty everyone gets. lol... Gotta love Keira Knightley. She looked like she was about to pass out after dancing. And, of course, Darcy searching the house for her so he could snag another dance was entirely entertaining. Gotta love a tough guy who turns into a puppy dog.

Could entice a non-historical person to read historicals.... :e2fish:
The Regency era was between 1811 and 1820. I haven't read a Regency-set novel in a long time, but the two I liked the most were Nicole Jordan and Jayne Castle because they broke so many of the rules with their unconventional heroines, very creative love scenes, and unique plots. If I were to recommend anyone to you, those two authors would be the first.

And yes, my friend has PLENTY of dancing scenes in her books!

An author I picked up recently but haven't read yet is Colleen Gleason. She writes in the Regency era, but her books are about vampire hunters, and have been called things along the lines of Buffy Meets Ballroom. I never watched Buffy, but I'm really intrigued by Gleason's concept so I'm going to give the books a whirl. I have the first one, The Rest Falls Away.

Another confession: I have had Pride & Prejudice on my TiVo for over a year now because I know that I'm going to bawl my eyes out when I see it. Just seeing the previews gave me the chills, so I'm saving it for a day when I have the house all to myself and need a good cleansing. Maybe I'll read Proof right afterward ;)

[girlyswot]

If you really want Regency, then imo, the only author to start with is Georgette Heyer who established the whole genre and remains head and shoulders above every other author in the field. Try Devil's Cub, or Venetia, or Sylvester, or...

[Stacia Kane]

So what exactly is the regency period? Because I hear you guys talking about dancing and I just watched Pride and Prejudice tonight. You cannot get the emotion of the dances from the book, but the movie, whoa. Love the dancing scenes. If you're writing regency, put several of those in and don't forget how hot and sweaty everyone gets. lol... Gotta love Keira Knightley. She looked like she was about to pass out after dancing. And, of course, Darcy searching the house for her so he could snag another dance was entirely entertaining. Gotta love a tough guy who turns into a puppy dog.

Could entice a non-historical person to read historicals.... :e2fish:

I wouldn't look for some of the scenes from that movie in the actual book, as for whatever reason the people behind that version decided they knew better than Austen what the story was and made some major alterations to character, setting, and story (and decided historical accuracy was unimportant as well.) (And sorry, no, I hate Keira Knightley.)

Watch the BBC version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth if you want to see the REAL story, as written. :)



I think the biggest Regency cliche I can think of are those bluestocking heroines. It seems they're all rusaders for somebody's rights. :)

[julie thorpe]

Right on, girlyswot. But I get the feeling most of the people who have responded to this posting would find them too tame - no explicit sex, no huff and puff and sweat, no orgasms . . . I guess I instinctively resent the way the Regency genre (as established by Georgette Heyer) has degenerated into contemporary attitudes to sex dressed up in period garb. A very different reading experience, for one thing. Georgette Heyer was very much an admirer of Jane Austen and her subtext of dry humour and observation is one of the joys of her work. She took the established mores of the day and wove her stories around them. Explicit sex scenes are anachronistic. Period. (Pun intended.)

[Gillhoughly]

You should post an excerpt from Francis's book.

I could, but the emotional impact isn't there without the lead up to the scene. It's like foreplay. You need some of that to get to the payoff.

You just have to read the whole book, but happily Francis is a writer everyone can learn from. I've read his books several times over to figure out "how did he DO that?" for technique.

I had a literary agent tell me to re-write my book with no POV from the male lead.
I discovered she'd never sold a book, ever, in like 9 years...

First, no male POV in a romance is complete bollocks. That used to be the rule, but her info is a few decades out of date.

Second--your "agent" is an incompetent moron and I hope you've fired her. (If her name is B&rb&r& B&uer do this carefully. That dame is nuts.) The agent works for YOU, not the other way around, and you can absolutely fire her.

Third--here's a safe place to shop for a new agent.

http://anotherealm.com/prededitors/pubagent.htm

Fourth--you can write to authors who do books similar to your own. "I'm an aspiring writer in need of an agent who deals in your genre. May I ask who represents you?" (Don't ask for a crit, though.)

It is a good idea to have a sincere fan letter about their own books and what you like about them before you get to the question. Writers tend to respond well to a little egoboo. We don't get much.

Call it foreplay.

:D

[BlackViolet13]

I think the biggest Regency cliche I can think of are those bluestocking heroines. It seems they're all rusaders for somebody's rights. :)

Excellent! This is exactly the type of thing I'm looking for. Thanks, December!

I've seen a lot of references to Georgette Heyer writing all the cliches, but I suppose that because she's what some would call the godmother to the genre and has so many books, references to cliches are to be expected. From what you described, Girlyswot, she sounds a lot like what my CP is writing. I'll be sure to check some of hers out if they will help me work with my friend's writing :) Thanks for the title suggestions, Girlyswot!

Julie, I'm with mollyluna in that I like to read romance for the romance. If I didn't, I wouldn't be here asking for help on how to write love scenes that are appropriate to my CP's genre. Sure, I like some of the hotter stuff as well, but it's not a deal-breaker for me if there is no sex, either. A good story is a good story, whether it has sex [or fill in the blank] or not. One thing I like very much about the romance genre is that there is something for every taste. That's a good thing, is it not?

I like Keira Knightley! I hate her for being thin and beautiful, but I can't really hold THAT against her too much, now can I? ;) I really enjoyed her in Love, Actually and Bend it Like Beckham. And of course, the Pirates movies. Call me a cheeseball if you wish, I can't help it :)

Another author who has written in the Regency era--and I'm smacking my forehead for forgetting her--is Julie Garwood. Her writing IMO is absolutely BEAUTIFUL and one of my all time favorite books is Castles. I sense a JG-Regency-Fest coming on :D

[Gillhoughly]

He sounds like the puuuuurrrrrfect beta reader.

Heh--you'd think. But I give my stuff to women to beta since they're the bulk of my audience. If they like nookie from a guy's POV, then I did my job right.

However, I gave my romantic male friend some of my books to read during a trans-Atlantic flight. He's not a reader, though, unless it's a computer magazine. But the smokin' hawt opening I had in one caught his attention and kept him reading from New York to the UK. Surprised the hell out of him, that.

:D

[AnneMarble]

Here's an article at All About Romance about traditional Regencies:
http://www.likesbooks.com/205.html

Unfortunately, Regency trads aren't doing too well today. Signet and Zebra recently became the last two publishers to drop their Regency trad lines. Harlequin Historicals is publishing some of them (such as Carla Kelly's books, yay!). Also, some of the ebook publishers have stepped in to fill in the need. Oh, and Amanda Grange (http://www.amandagrange.com/Berkleyhistoricals.html) has had a couple of books published in trade paperback by Berkley that look like they might be Regencies (although longer than a typical Regency trad).

At the same time, historical romances set in the Regency are doing OK, atlhough many writers and readers are predicting the End of Historicals. The Regency period is still the most popular for historical romances. (The others are Victorian, Scottish Highlands, and Medievals.) The Regency historical tends to be longer with (generally) more love scenes and less emphasis on the history, and more emphasis on subplot, but there are exceptions to every rule. Many of the writers of Regency historicals (such as Mary Balogh, Jo Beverley, and Loretta Chase) used to write traditional Regencies before moving on to the longer books.

[Jersey Chick]

I believe Ellora's Cave's Regency Line is Tradition Regency - all sex behind closed doors. But it does seem the market is drying up. Of course, a few years ago, they proclaimed historicals dead as well. Now they're making a comeback.

Ya just never know.

[BlackViolet13]

Thanks, everyone, for your valuable information! I appreciate it very much.

I have another question, and I'm hoping somebody can help because I'm feeling a bit confused here. The first book in the series my friend is writing is clearly a romance, and it falls into EC's Cotillion standards, meaning everything is closed doors. However, the three books she has written after that have one female main character (FMC) throughout, and FMC is a spy who is working with a male partner (MMC). FMC is unmarried and has a crush on another man, and the three books follow that story arc until the third one, when FMC and her crush finally get to have their HEA. All four books have the same set of characters.

One thing I'm trying to help my friend figure out is how to categorize the last three books. The first one has the FMC's POV as well as MMC's POV throughout, but also has a little bit (about 10%) of his wife's POV (male MC gets married to her toward the end of the book) and follows that romance line. There is a small amount of sex (hence the purple prose question above) and romance, but the main thoroughline is the FMC's progression toward becoming a spy and the MMC teaching her the ropes. I hope this makes sense ;)

In the second book, the FMC and MMC are still the main characters, but one of the subplots follows another couple's romance, while FMC & MMC solve a crime involving that couple. There are going to be romantic elements surrounding the other couple as well as a few love scenes, but the focus is on the FMC & MMC solving the crime.

And in the third book, the FMC and MMC are solving a crime, but the FMC is finally able to overcome the barriers that came between she and her crush, hence bringing that story arc to an end when they have their HEA. Like the two preceding books, the love scenes are not closed door.

I have never come across a situation like this, and would love some advice. Are the last three books romance? Or would they be better classified as mysteries with romantic elements? I think what I am most worried about is that her first book most definitely is a romance with a mystery subplot, but because this is a series I'm worried about how this will be marketed to a publisher. What I am worried about the most is that the four books aren't consistent in their format, and that she might run into troubles marketing them to one publisher. Any advice? Thanks!

[Irysangel]

Actually you can write romance without the hero's POV. Lori Handeland does a great job of this with her Nightcreature novels (Blue Moon, Hidden Moon, etc). They are all written from 1st person POV and are terrific.

My novel that comes out in 2009 will be 1st person POV and will be marketed as erotic paranormal romance (publisher's choice, not mine). I think paranormal allows you to be a little more generous with voice. I've never seen a regency/historical with just one POV, so I guess it depends on what you are writing.